U-BIX CORPORATION and EDILBERTO B. BRAVO VS VALERIE ANNE H. HOLLERO 570 SCRA 373 (2008)

U-BIX CORPORATION and EDILBERTO B. BRAVO

VS

VALERIE ANNE H. HOLLERO
570 SCRA 373 (2008)

An employer who seeks to dismiss an employee must afford the latter ample opportunity to be heard and to defend himself with the assistance of his representative if he so desires.

Valerie Anne H. Hollero was hired as a management trainee and was eventually promoted to facilities manager by U-Bix Corporation (U-Bix). Hollero and three other employees were later sent to the United States for two months of training for a newly acquired franchise. Before she left, she signed a contract with U-Bix which reads that ―VALERIE ANNE H. HOLLERO shall remain in the employ of U-BIX CORPORATION for a period of five (5) years from completion of her U.S. Training otherwise she shall reimburse U-BIX CORPORATION for all costs (prorated) and expenses which U-BIX CORPORATION incurred for her (Hollero’s) training in the U.S‖

U-Bix, citing Hollero’s supposed ―pattern of tardiness, absences, neglect of duties and lack of interest,‖ terminated her employment for loss of trust and confidence. U-Bix then filed against Hollero before the Labor Arbiter for the reimbursement of training expenses and damages. Subsequently, Hollero also filed a complaint against U-Bix for illegal dismissal.

The Labor Arbiter (LA) rendered a decision declaring that the dismissal of Hollero is valid and legal and ordered her to pay U-Bix the reimbursement of her training. It dismissed Hollero’s complaint for lack of merit. On appeal before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), the NLRC reversed the LA’s decision. A Motion for Reconsideration was filed but subsequently denied by NLRC. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision.

ISSUES:
Whether or not Hollero was illegally dismissed by U-Bix

HELD:
U-Bix failed to discharge the burden of proof that Hollero’s dismissal is for a valid and just cause
In termination cases, the employer has the burden of proving that the dismissal is for a valid and just cause. While an employer enjoys a wider latitude of discretion in terminating the employment of managerial employees, managerial employees are also entitled to security of tenure and cannot be arbitrarily dismissed at any time and without cause as reasonably established in an appropriate investigation.

In the case at bar, U-Bix failed to substantiate their allegations of Hollero’s habitual absenteeism, habitual tardiness, neglect of duties, and lack of interest. Daily time records, attendance records, or other documentary evidence attesting to these grounds could have readily been presented to support the allegations but none was.

The merits of a complaint for illegal dismissal do not depend on its prayer but on whether the employer discharges its burden of proving that the dismissal is valid.

U-Bix failed to comply with the procedural due process of dismissing an employee. In another vein, the Court finds that U-Bix and Bravo failed to comply with the procedural requirements for a valid dismissal. Hollero being a manager did not excuse them from observing such procedural requirements.

The notice does not inform outright the employee that an investigation will be conducted on the charges particularized therein which, if proven, will result to her dismissal. It does not contain a plain statement of the charges of malfeasance or misfeasance nor categorically state the effect on her employment if the charges are proven to be true. It does not apprise Hollero of possible dismissal should her explanation prove unsatisfactory. Besides, the U-Bix and Bravo did not even establish that Hollero received the memorandum.

Neither did U-Bix and Bravo show that they conducted a hearing or conference during which Hollero, with the assistance of counsel if she so desired, had opportunity to respond to the charge, present her evidence, or rebut the evidence presented against her. The meeting with Hollero on December 23, 1996 did not satisfy the hearing requirement, for Hollero was not given the opportunity to avail herself of counsel.

Article 277(b) of the Labor Code mandates that an employer who seeks to dismiss an employee must ―afford the latter ample opportunity to be heard and to defend himself with the assistance of his representative if he so desires.‖ Expounding on this provision, the Court held that ―'[a]mple opportunity’ connotes every kind of assistance that management must accord the employee to enable him to prepare adequately for his defense including legal representation‖.