Myline Cordial

Eddie Manuel, Romeo Bana, Rogelio Pagtama, Jr. and Joel Rea vs. N.C. Construction Supply, Johnny Lim, Anita Sy and National Labor Relations Commission (Second Division)
G.R. No. 127553, November 28, 1997

FACTS: Petitioners were employed as drivers at. N.C. Construction Supply owned by private respondents. Another company driver and his helper was found stealing company property consisting of electrical wire, welding rod, G.I. sheet, steel bar and plywood. The helper identified petitioners as among the perpetrators of the theft.

The petitioners received separate notices informing them that they were positively identified by their co-worker and were thus invited to Pasig Police Station for investigation. Petitioners admitted their guilt and offered to resign in exchange for the withdrawal of any criminal charge against them. The resignation was accepted by the counsel of the respondents.

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not petitioners were illegally dismissed because they were not informed of the charge against them nor were they given an opportunity to dispute the same.
2. Whether or not the employer observed due process in terminating the employment of the petitioners.
3. Whether or not the petitioner’s admission is inadmissible as evidence against them as they were not assisted by counsel during the conduct of investigation at the police station.
RULING:
1. Petitioners were dismissed for a just cause. They were found guilty of stealing company property and it was proved during an investigation conducted by respondents’ lawyer. An employer is authorized to terminate the services of an employee for loss of trust and confidence, provided that the loss of confidence arises from particular proven facts. The law does not require proof beyond reasonable doubt of the employee’s misconduct. Substantial evidence is sufficient. Substantial evidence has been defined as such relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.

2. Employers failed to observe due process in terminating the employment of petitioners. Due process requires that the employer should furnish the worker whose employment is sought to be terminated a written notice containing a statement of the cause(s) for termination and afford him ample opportunity to be heard and to defend himself with the assistance of a representative if he so desires. Specifically, the employer must furnish the worker with two written notices before termination of employment can be legally effected: (1) notice which apprises the employee of the particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought, and (2) the subsequent notice which informs the employee of the employer’s decision to dismiss him.

3. The right to counsel under Section 12 of the Bill of Rights is meant to protect a suspect in a criminal case under custodial investigation. Custodial investigation is the stage where the police investigation is no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime but has begun to focus on a particular suspect who had been taken into custody by the police to carry out a process of interrogation that lends itself to elicit incriminating statements. It is when questions are initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way. The right to counsel attaches only upon the start of such investigation. Therefore, the exclusionary rule under paragraph (3) Section 12 of the Bill of Rights applies only to admissions made in a criminal investigation but not to those made in an administrative investigation. In this case, petitioners were not under custodial investigation as they were not yet accused by the police of committing a crime. The investigation was merely an administrative investigation conducted by the employer, not a criminal investigation. The questions were propounded by the employer’s lawyer, not by police officers. The fact that the investigation was conducted at the police station did not necessarily put petitioners under custodial investigation as the venue of the investigation was merely incidental. Hence, the admissions made by petitioners during such investigation may be used as evidence to justify their dismissal.

NOTES:
An employer has a right to terminate the services of an employee subject to both substantive and procedural limitations. This means that (1) the dismissal must be for a just or authorized cause provided in the Labor Code, and (2) the employee must be accorded due process before his employment is terminated.