G.R. No. 127553 – 346 Phil. 1014 – 282 SCRA 326 – Labor Law – Post-Employment – Termination; Due Process – Just Causes
Political Law – Constitutional Law – Bill of Rights; Right to Counsel
In June 1995, the security guards of N.C. Construction Supply caught an employee stealing from the company premises. The said employee then admitted that the incident was part of a series of theft involving four other employees, namely, Eddie Manuel, Romeo Bana, Rogelio Pagtama, Jr., and Joel Rea. The four were then invited to the police station for questioning. The owner of N.C. Construction sent his lawyer, Atty. Ramon Reyes to interrogate the four employees.
Manuel et al admitted the crime imputed against them before Atty. Reyes. They agreed that in exchange for N.C. Construction not filing a case, they will resign as employees instead. But after resigning, the four former employees sued N.C. Construction for illegal dismissal. They now claim that their admission made in the police station before Atty. Reyes was coerced by the lawyer and that they were without the assistance of counsel which is violative of their constitutional rights.
ISSUE: Whether or not Manuel et al were dismissed without valid cause.
HELD: No. Manuel et al were positively identified by witnesses as part of the series of theft. This was not sufficiently controverted by them. Under Article 282 of the Labor Code, such act authorizes the employer to terminate the services of an employee for loss of trust and confidence, provided that the loss of confidence arises from particular proven facts.
What is the quantum of proof needed?
Substantial evidence or such relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion and not proof beyond reasonable doubt as in criminal case.
Anent the issue of threat and intimidation, there was no sufficient proof presented by Manuel et al to prove that the lawyer coerced them to make the admission.
Anent the issue that Atty. Reyes’s interrogation of them without the presence of counsel is violative of their constitutional rights, such argument is misplaced. The right to counsel accorded by the Constitution only applies to criminal cases and only in custodial investigations. In this case, this is not a criminal case and Manuel et al were not under custodial investigation when they were interrogated by Atty. Reyes. It is also of no moment that Atty. Reyes’s interrogation happened in a police station. What Atty. Reyes did was a private administrative investigation for the interest of his employer, the N.C. Construction.
However, Manuel et al are entitled to damages (P1,000.00 each) because it appears that although they were dismissed for a just cause, their dismissal was without the proper procedure (twin-notice rule not observed by NC Construction). The two-notice rule provides:
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.
