Title Gonzales v. NLRC and Ateneo de Davao University, G.R. No.
125735
Ponente BELLOSILLO, J.:
Doctrine Powers of Administrative Bodies
Facts ● Lorlene Gonzales, Petitioner, has been a schoolteacher in
the Elementary Department of private respondent Ateneo
de Davao University (hereafter ATENEO) since 1974. Fr.
Oscar Millar, S.J., Ateneo Grade School Headmaster, sent a
letter dated 11 April 1991 informing petitioner Lorlene A.
Gonzales of the complaints of two (2) parents for alleged
use of corporal punishment on her students.
● Petitioner claimed that:
(1) She was not informed of the identity of the parents who
allegedly complained of the corporal punishment she
purportedly inflicted in school-year 1990-1991.
(2) She was not confronted about it by private respondent
ATENEO in 1991 and that it was only two (2) years after the
complaints were made that she discovered that ATENEO
was soliciting complainants to lodge written complaints
against her.
● An investigative committee was created to look into the
alleged use of corporal punishment by petitioner in
disciplining her students but petitioner refused to take part
in the investigation unless the rules of procedure laid down
by the Committee be revised, contending that the same
were violative of her right to due process.
● Private respondent served a Notice of Termination on
petitioner pursuant to the findings and recommendation of
the Committee.
● Thereafter, petitioner received a letter from the president of
ATENEO demanding her voluntary resignation a week from
receipt of the letter, otherwise, she would be considered
resigned from the service.
● Petitioner filed a complaint before the Labor Arbiter for
illegal dismissal.
● LA: found her dismissal illegal for lack of factual basis and
ordered ATENEO to award petitioner separation pay, back
wages and 13th month pay.
● NLRC: reversed the decision of the LA. It declared that the
petitioner's dismissal was valid and legal. However, since
ATENEO offered petitioner her retirement benefits, it was
but proper that she be extended said benefits.
●
Issue W/N the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in
sustaining as valid and legal the dismissal of petitioner by
private respondent ATENEO. cha
SC Ruling ● Yes. Petition granted. The assailed Decision of NLRC dated
25 March 1996 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE and the
decision of LA "declaring the dismissal of complainant
Lorlene A. Gonzales illegal for lack of factual basis” iis
REINSTATED, AFFIRMED and ADOPTED herein as the
decision in the instant case.
● The NLRC appears to have skirted several important issues
raised by petitioner foremost of which is the absence of
due process. Upon being notified of her termination, she
has the right to demand compliance with the basic
requirements of due process.
● Compliance entails the twin requirements of procedural
and substantial due process. Ample opportunity must
be afforded the employee to defend herself either
personally and/or with assistance of a representative; to
know the nature of her offense; and, to cross examine and
confront face to face the witnesses against her. Likewise,
due process requires that the decision must be based
on established facts and on a sound legal foundation.
● The adamant refusal of the Committee to accede to this
demand resulted in her failure to confront and cross-
examine her accusers
● . This is not "harping at technicalities" as wrongfully
pointed out by the NLRC but a serious violation of
petitioner’s statutory and constitutional right to due
process that ultimately vitiated the investigation.
● In Ang Tibay v. CIR, the Court set the measure of
evidence to be presented in an administrative
investigation when it said, "substantial evidence is
more than mere scintilla. It means such relevant
evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion."
● ATENEO failed to prove by substantial evidence that
petitioner had inflicted corporal punishment on her
students.
● Failure of ATENEO to refute the contention of petitioner
that the joint affidavits executed by the students and
parents were "pre-prepared" raises serious doubts as to
the probative value of this evidence.
● As correctly pointed out by theLA, "there is more reason to
disregard it especially where the same was challenged and
has remained unexplained." Hearsay evidence, in the
strict sense, has no probative value whether objected
to or not.
● The evidence of private respondent did not measure
up to this standard. It relied solely on the witnesses’
affidavits with questionable veracity. Moreover, the
affidavit of recantation executed by some students
and their parents all the more weakened the case of
private Respondent. Failure in this regard negates the
very existence of the ground for dismissal.
c
● On the other hand, petitioner adequately proved, by
means of affidavits, letters of petition and manifesto made
by her students and co-teachers, that she was a
competent and dedicated teacher having spent
seventeen (17) years of her life in the service of the
very institution which is now seeking her dismissal.
