G.R. No. 100749 - APRIL 1992 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. 100749April 24, 1992 GT Printers , et al. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al. G.R. No. 97039April 24, 1992 Concordio Abellana, Sr., et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 94546April 24, 1992 People of the Philippines vs. Panfilo Diga G.R. No. 87186April 24, 1992 Camillo Villa vs. People of the Philippines, et al. G.R. No. 101028April 23, 1992 Feliciana Licayan Tale vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 91636April 23, 1992 Peter John D. Calderon vs. Bartolome Carale, et al. G.R. No. 92403April 22, 1992 Victor A. Aquino vs. Civil Service Commission, et al. G.R. No. 83837-42April 22, 1992 People of the Philippines vs. Maximiano C. Asuncion, et al. G.R. No. 76265April 22, 1992 Virginia Calalang vs. Register of Deeds of Q.C., et al. G.R. No. 76002April 22, 1992 People of the Philippines vs. Julito Naguita G.R. No. L-60222April 22, 1992 Traders Royal Bank vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-27876April 22, 1992 Adelaida S. Maneclang vs. Juan T. Baun, et al. G.R. No. 89454April 20, 1992 University of the Philippines vs. Civil Service Commission, et al. G.R. No. 87644April 20, 1992 G & P Manpower Services vs. Nlrc, et al. G.R. No. L-49983April 20, 1992 Federation of Free Workers, et al. vs. Amado G. Inciong G.R. No. 103524April 15, 1992 Cesar Bengzon, et al. vs. Franklin N. Drilon, et al. G.R. No. 101476April 14, 1992 Export Processing Zone Authority vs. Commission on Human Rights, et al. G.R. Nos. 98340April 10, 1992 Mariano J. Pimentel , et al. vs. Francis E. Garchitorena, et al. G.R. No. 97637April 10, 1992 Wilmon Auto Supply Corp., et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 97434April 10, 1992 People of the Philippines vs. Arturo Develles G.R. No. 97217April 10, 1992 Chemphil Export And Import Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 94755April 10, 1992 People of the Philippines vs. Alfredo A. Moreno, Jr., et al. G.R. No. 94070April 10, 1992 Rosalinda De Perio Santos vs. Catalino Macaraig, et al. G.R. No. 93408April 10, 1992 People of the Philippines vs. Rolando M. Castillo G.R. No. 90015April 10, 1992 People of the Philippines vs. Francisco C. Ventura G.R. No. 82067April 10, 1992 Lucilyn T. Zambrano vs. Sandiganbayan, et al. G .R. No. 79316April 10, 1992 People of the Philippines vs. Alfredo Nuñez G.R. No. 72247April 10, 1992 Red V Coconut Products, Ltd. vs. Vicente Leogardo, Jr., et al. G.R. No. L-67485April 10, 1992 Nat'l. Cong. of Unions in the Sugar Ind. of the Philippines vs. Cresenciano B. Trajano, et al. G.R. No. L-49019April 10, 1992 People of the Philippines vs. City Court of Gen. Santos City (Br. Iii), et al. A.M. No. P-90-417April 10, 1992 Judge Jose A. Galan vs. Evelyn Napase, et al. G.R. No. 100599April 8, 1992 Al-Amanah Islamic Investment Bank of the Phils. vs. Civil Service Commission. G.R. No. 95907April 8, 1992 Jose Reynante vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 97308April 7, 1992 People of the Philippines. vs. Peter Hatague G.R. No. 93355April 7, 1992 Luis B. Domingo vs. Development Bank of the Philippines, et al. G.R. Nos. 88515-16April 7, 1992 People of the Philippines vs. Willy P. Bagawe G.R. No. 87880April 7, 1992 Cecilia Mata vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 77365April 7, 1992 Rita Caleon vs. Agus Development Corporation G.R. No. 96401April 6, 1992 Nemesio N. Atis vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 84525April 6, 1992 People of the Philippines vs. Arturo L. Mauyao G.R. No. 81559-60April 6, 1992 People of the Philippines, et al. vs. Hon. David G. Nitafan, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. GT Printers , et al. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al. Concordio Abellana, Sr., et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Panfilo Diga Camillo Villa vs. People of the Philippines, et al. Feliciana Licayan Tale vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Peter John D. Calderon vs. Bartolome Carale, et al. Victor A. Aquino vs. Civil Service Commission, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Maximiano C. Asuncion, et al. Virginia Calalang vs. Register of Deeds of Q.C., et al. People of the Philippines vs. Julito Naguita Traders Royal Bank vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Adelaida S. Maneclang vs. Juan T. Baun, et al. University of the Philippines vs. Civil Service Commission, et al. G & P Manpower Services vs. Nlrc, et al. Federation of Free Workers, et al. vs. Amado G. Inciong Cesar Bengzon, et al. vs. Franklin N. Drilon, et al. Export Processing Zone Authority vs. Commission on Human Rights, et al. Mariano J. Pimentel , et al. vs. Francis E. Garchitorena, et al. Wilmon Auto Supply Corp., et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Arturo Develles Chemphil Export And Import Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Alfredo A. Moreno, Jr., et al. Rosalinda De Perio Santos vs. Catalino Macaraig, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Rolando M. Castillo People of the Philippines vs. Francisco C. Ventura Lucilyn T. Zambrano vs. Sandiganbayan, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Alfredo Nuñez Red V Coconut Products, Ltd. vs. Vicente Leogardo, Jr., et al. Nat'l. Cong. of Unions in the Sugar Ind. of the Philippines vs. Cresenciano B. Trajano, et al. People of the Philippines vs. City Court of Gen. Santos City (Br. Iii), et al. Judge Jose A. Galan vs. Evelyn Napase, et al. Al-Amanah Islamic Investment Bank of the Phils. vs. Civil Service Commission. Jose Reynante vs. Court of Appeals, et al. People of the Philippines. vs. Peter Hatague Luis B. Domingo vs. Development Bank of the Philippines, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Willy P. Bagawe Cecilia Mata vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Rita Caleon vs. Agus Development Corporation Nemesio N. Atis vs. Court of Appeals, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Arturo L. Mauyao People of the Philippines, et al. vs. Hon. David G. Nitafan, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.

GT PRINTERS and/or TRINIDAD G. BARBA,petitioners,
vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (4TH DIVISION) and EDWIN RICARDO,respondents.

GRIÑO-AQUINO,J.:

The private respondent, Edwin Ricardo, was employed in 1968 as an apprentice of GT Printers, a single proprietorship owned by Mrs. Trinidad Barba of East Capitol Site, Cebu City. Having gained enough experience and expertise in the printing business and after undergoing special schooling in Manila at company expense, Ricardo was promoted to the position of production manager of GT Printers. In 1978, he became general manager after the untimely demise of the owner's husband, who held that position. Ricardo earned a monthly basic salary of P1,680, an ECOLA of P485, representation allowance of P1,000 and or top of these, a three (3%) per cent share in the gross receipts of the business.

In February, 1985, Ricardo's wife established Insta Printers, a rival printing press, with Edwin Ricardo himself as consultant and owner. Since the establishment of Insta Printers, Ricardo became a habitual absentee from his job at GT Printers. He neglected his duties and responsibilities, and became lax in directing and supervising the work force, resulting in numerous major printing errors and failure to meet printing specifications leading to the rejection of several job orders from regular customers.

Mrs. Barba noticed that Ricardo not only used GT Printers' bookcloth and other printing materials for his Insta Printers, but he also gave specific instructions to the production staff to give priority to book and magazine job orders for Insta Printers. Eventually, the regular customers of GT Printers were pirated by Insta Printers. Ricardo also manipulated price quotations during the canvassing of bids to favor his own outfit instead of GT Printers.

Because of those irregularities, GT Printers suspended Ricardo as general manager for 30 days. Effective June 18, 1986, Richard Barba was designated to take his place. Contracts concluded by respondent Ricardo thereafter were no longer honored. However, he continued to be a sales agent for GT Printers, hence, he continued to receive commissions. Notices of his investigation scheduled on July 24, 1986 and August 13, 1986 were sent to him but he did not appear at the investigation. He stopped reporting for work and soon after filed a complaint for illegal dismissal in the Regional Arbitration Branch No. VII, of the Department of Labor and Employment in Cebu City, entitled "Edwin Ricardo vs. GT Printers and/or Trinidad G. Barba." (NLRC Case No. RAB-VII-0398-86)

The case was heard by Labor Arbiter Bonifacio Tumanak who rendered a decision on January 4, 1990 finding that Ricardo was lawfully dismissed from employment. Nevertheless, the Labor Arbiter ordered the payment to him of separation pay equivalent to one-half month pay for every year of service (pp. 28-42,Rollo).

Ricardo appealed that decision to the NLRC which on April 18, 1991 (pp. 43-51,Rollo), set aside the labor arbiter's decision and entered a new one, finding Ricardo's dismissal illegal and ordering his reinstatement with backwages. However, aware that strained relations had developed between the parties, the Commission ordered GT Printers to pay Ricardo backwages for three (3) years and separation pay of one month for every year of service in lieu of reinstatement.

GT Printers filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied. Hence, this petition for review oncertiorari, with a prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order. On July 29, 1991, the Court issued a temporary restraining order upon petitioner's filing a P100,000 bond enjoining the respondents to desist from enforcing the NLRC decision during the pendency of this action.

The petition for review is premised on the petitioner's contention that grave abuse of discretion was committed by the NLRC —

The petition has merit.

The twin requirements of a valid termination: due process and just cause — were met substantially for Ricardo was given ample opportunity to appear at the two scheduled investigations in order to present his side, but he chose to boycott the investigation. Even at the hearing before the Labor Arbiter, he waived, through counsel, the presentation and cross-examination of witnesses.

Due process does not necessarily mean or require a hearing, but simply an opportunity or right to be heard (Hian vs. CTA, 59 SCRA 110; Azul vs. Castro, 133 SCRA 271). The affidavits, testimonies and other documentary evidence presented by the petitioner stand uncontroverted and are therefore entitled to full credit. It is well-settled that this Court is not a trier of facts, so we defer to the superior opportunity of the lower courts or administrative bodies to test the credibility of the witnesses and to examine the authenticity of the documentary evidence directly before them (Mapa vs. Arroyo, 175 SCRA 76; Dagupan Bus Co., Inc. vs. NLRC, 191 SCRA 328).

The security of tenure accorded to labor under the Constitution does not embrace infractions of accepted company rules amounting to breach of trust and loss of confidence (Rosello, Jr. vs. NLRC, 190 SCRA 779). The right of an employer to dismiss a managerial employee for breach of trust and loss of confidence, as in this case, cannot be doubted. As a measure of self-preservation against acts inimical to its interests, an employer has the right to dismiss an employee found committing acts of dishonesty and disloyalty. The employer may not be compelled to continue to employ such a person whose continuance in the service would patently be inimical to his employer's interest (Colgate Palmolive Phils. Inc. vs. Ople, 163 SCRA 323). The dismissal of a dishonest employee is in the best interest not only of management but also of labor for the law never intended to impose an unjust situation on either labor or management (Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils. Inc. vs. NLRC, 172 SCRA 751).

Reinstatement would be ill-advised and incompatible with the labor arbiter's finding that "from those documentary evidences presented by respondent, it can be safely conclude[d] that . . . there exist visible conflict of interest amounting to willful breach of trust and confidence repose (sic) upon him by his employer, . . . as well as (b) habitual neglect of his duties . . ." (pp. 216-217,Rollo). The reinstatement of erring managers may not be ordered with the same ease and liberality as rank and file workers (Pacific Cement Co., Inc. vs. NLRC, 173 SCRA 192).

WHEREFORE, the assailed decision of the NLRC is hereby reversed and set aside. As the complainant (herein private respondent), Edwin Ricardo, was lawfully dismissed for dishonesty and serious misconduct, his complaint for illegal dismissal is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Cruz and Medialdea, JJ., concur.