Case Digest: Technol Eight v. NLRC & Amular

G.R. No. 187605 : April 13, 2010




The petitioner Technol Eight Philippines Corporation (Technol), located at 127 East Main Avenue, Laguna Technopark, Bin, Laguna, manufactures metal parts and motor vehicle components. It hired the respondent Dennis Amular in March 1998 and assigned him to Technols Shearing Line, together with Clarence P. Ducay. Rafael Mendoza was the lines team leader.

On April 16, 2002 at about 5:30 p.m., Mendoza went to the Surf City Internet Cafin Balibago, Sta. Rosa, Laguna. As Mendoza was leaving the establishment, he was confronted by Amular and Ducay who engaged him in a heated argument regarding their work in the shearing line, particularly Mendozas report to Avelino S. De Leon, Jr., Technols Production Control and Delivery (PCD) assistant supervisor, about Amulars and Ducays questionable behavior at work. The heated argument resulted in a fistfight that required the intervention of the barangay tanods in the area.

Upon learning of the incident, Technols management sent to Amular and Ducay a notice of preventive suspension/notice of discharge advising them that their fistfight with Mendoza violated Section 1-k of Technols Human Resource Department (HRD) Manual. The two were given forty-eight (48) hours to explain why no disciplinary action should be taken against them for the incident. They were placed under preventive suspension for thirty (30) days, thereafter, Amular received a notice informing him that Technol management will conduct an administrative hearing. He was also given two (2) days to respond in writing to the statements attached to and supporting the notice. A day before the hearing, Amular filed a complaint for illegal suspension/constructive dismissal with a prayer for separation pay, backwages and several money claims, against Technol. Amular failed to attend the administrative hearing. Technol sent him a notice of dismissal.

The Executive Labor Arbiter found Amulars preventive suspension and subsequent dismissal were illegal. With respect to Amulars dismissal, the Arbiter held that Technol failed to afford him procedural due process since he was not able to present his side because he had filed a case before the NLRC at the time he was called to a hearing; Technol also failed to substantiate its allegations against Amular; the fistfight occurred around 200 to 300 meters away from the work area and it happened after office hours. Arbiter Reyes awarded Amular separation pay (since he did not want to be reinstated), backwages, 13th month pay, service incentive leave pay and attorneys fees in the total amount of P158,987.70.

Technol appealed to the NLRC. It NLRC affirmed the labor arbiters ruling. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the latters decision.

ISSUE: Whether or not respondent was illegally dismissed.

HELD: Court of Appeals decision is overruled.


Technol insists that it had to order Amulars dismissal in order to uphold the integrity of the company rules and to avoid the erosion of discipline among its employees. Also, it disputes the CAs conclusion that the fact that Amulars liability should be mitigated because the fight "was nipped in the bud." It submits that Mendoza had already sustained grave injuries when the mauling was stopped.

Amular undoubtedly committed a misconduct or exhibited improper behavior that constituted a valid cause for his dismissal under the law and jurisprudential standards. The circumstances of his misdeed, to our mind, rendered him unfit to continue working for Technol; guilt is not diminished by his claim that Technols management called the three of them to a meeting, and asked them to explain their sides and settle their differences, which they did. Mendoza significantly denied the alleged settlement, maintaining that while they were summoned by De Leon after the incident, he could not shake hands and settle with Amular and Ducay since they did not even apologize or ask forgiveness for what they did. We do not find Mendozas denial of Amulars claim unusual as Mendoza would not have stood his ground in this case if a settlement had previously been reached. That a meeting had taken place does not appear disputed, but a settlement cannot be inferred simply because a meeting took place.

Neither do we believe that Amular was discriminated against because he was not the only one preventively suspended. These notices informed them that they were being preventively suspended for 30 days from May 19, 2002 to June 17, 2002 for Ducay, and May 21, 2002 for Amular.

Thus, Amular was not illegally dismissed; he was dismissed for cause.


What we see in the records belie Amulars claim of denial of procedural due process. He chose not to present his side at the administrative hearing. In fact, he avoided the investigation into the charges against him by filing his illegal dismissal complaint ahead of the scheduled investigation. Under these facts, he was given the opportunity to be heard and he cannot now come to us protesting that he was denied this opportunity. To belabor a point the Court has repeatedly made in employee dismissal cases, the essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard; it is the denial of this opportunity that constitutes violation of due process of law. Solid Development Corporation Workers Association v. Solid Development Corporation, G.R. No. 165995, August 14, 2007.


Popular Posts