7/31/2019 26 Bibiana Farms and Mills v Lado

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/26-bibiana-farms-and-mills-v-lado 1/1

Bibiana Farms and Mills v. Arturo Lado

Facts:

Respondent was a warehouseman for the Petitioner, acting as empty sacks controller among other functions. On oneoccasion, a customer transacted with the Petitioner’s cashier for the purchase of 3,000 pieces of empty sacks. Thecashier gave a note to the customer and instructed the latter to show said note to the warehouseman. The note

contained instructions as to how many sacks were to be loaded. After showing the note to the Respondent (thewarehouseman), the latter loaded the said sacks for the customer, but despite the cashier’s instruction, theRespondent loaded a total of 3,400 sacks instead of just 3,000; and if not for the cashier’s timely inspection, the 400sack excess would have been brought by the customer without payment.

The next day, the Petitioner’s General Operations Manager issued two (2) memoranda directing Respondent tosubmit his written explanation on the release of sacks contrary to the cashier’s instructions. After submitting hisexplanation, another memorandum was issued Manager informing him that he is being placed under preventivesuspension pending investigation. Another notice was sent to his house informing him of the date of the investigationbut Respondent’s house maid refused to accept it. On September 11, 1998, an investiga tion was conducted, butbefore a decision can be made on the investigation, Respondent filed, a complaint for illegal preventive suspensionagainst the Petitioner. A few days after, Respondent received a Notice of Termination dismissing him from the

service the grounds being "serious misconduct, dishonesty, willful breach of trust, fraud, loss of confidence and other grounds". Aggrieved, Respondent filed another case for illegal termination. Both cases were consolidated.

Issue:Was the termination valid?

Held:Yes. Under the Labor Code, the requirements for the lawful dismissal of an employee are two-fold: substantive andprocedural. Not only must the dismissal be for a just or authorized cause, the basic requirements of procedural dueprocess – notice and hearing  – must likewise be observed. Without the concurrence of the two, the termination isillegal.

On the just cause issue, Respondent was no ordinary rank-and-file employee. As warehouseman, his duties involvedthe handling of incoming and outgoing materials. He had, as the Arbiter noted, access to company property;tasked toclosely monitor and handle company property, especially the outflow of sacks to avoid or minimize losses. In other words, Respondent held a position of trust and confidence. When he disregarded the cashier’s note, Respondentviolated company procedures, laying the company open to the possibility of loss. This is a serious misconduct for which he should be held accountable.

On the issue of procedural due process, the essence of due process is the opportunity to be heard; it is the denial of this opportunity that constitutes violation of due process of law. The respondent was given the opportunity to beheard when a proper notice of investigation was sent to him, although the notice did not reach him for reasonsoutside the petitioner’s control. He was not also totally unheard on the matter as he was able to explain his sidethrough the two (2) explanation letters he submitted.