MUSAHAMAT WORKERS LABOR UNION v. MUSAHAMAT FARMS, INC. FARM 1 [G.R. No. 240184, July 6, 2022]

 CASE DIGEST

MUSAHAMAT WORKERS LABOR UNION v. MUSAHAMAT FARMS, INC. FARM 1

[G.R. No. 240184, July 6, 2022]

THIRD DIVISION, CAGUIOA, J.

 

Serious Misconduct; Wrongful Intent; Loss of Trust and Confidence; Substantial Evidence; Belatedly Executed Affidavits; Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus; Twin-Notice Rule; Substantial Compliance with Procedural Due Process; Confrontation of Witnesses; Voluntary Arbitration

 

Dismissal for serious misconduct requires proof by substantial evidence that the act was serious, that it related to the performance of the employee's duties so as to render the employee unfit to continue working for the employer, and that it was performed with wrongful intent. Dismissal for loss of trust and confidence likewise requires that the employee hold a position of trust and that an act justifying the loss actually occurred. Affidavits executed and submitted only after the dismissal has already been effected cannot have informed the employer's decision and are of doubtful weight; where an affiant's account of a material matter is discredited, the whole of the affidavit is tainted under the maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus. On procedural due process, the law exacts only substantial, not strict, compliance with the twin-notice rule: the first notice need not be couched with technical particularity so long as it sufficiently apprises the employee of the specific incident and acts complained of, and an opportunity to explain through a conference or grievance hearing satisfies the requirement of a hearing. Confrontation of witnesses is required only in adversarial criminal prosecutions, not in company investigations into administrative liability.

 

Respondent Musahamat Farms, Inc. Farm 1 is a Davao City corporation engaged in Cavendish banana plantation and exportation. It employed five watchmen — Ernesto Suril, Jr., Elvin Suril, Jhonel Suril, Nanding Abana, and Nonito Cabillon — who were members of petitioner union. 

On February 14, 2016, Security Officer Anthony R. Pablo announced that all watchmen would be reassigned from security duties to farm operations effective the following day. On February 15, 2016, respondent discovered that 260 banana bunches had been chopped down in Blocks 6A and 7A of its HKJ 2 Farm, and it opened an investigation, suspecting the watchmen of cutting the trees in retaliation for their reassignment. 

On March 3, 2016, respondent issued a first notice placing the watchmen under a 15-day preventive suspension pending investigation of the chopping incident. A grievance meeting was held on March 22, 2016, attended only by Ernesto Suril, Jr. A second 15-day preventive suspension notice issued on March 23, 2016. 

On April 12, 2016, respondent issued notices terminating the watchmen effective April 14, 2016 on the grounds of serious misconduct and loss of trust and confidence. A second grievance conference was held on April 15, 2016 — after the dismissal had already taken effect. In support of the charges, respondent later presented affidavits of witnesses, all executed on July 19, 2016, more than three months after the termination notices, attesting to an alleged February 19, 2016 meeting at which the watchmen were purportedly identified as the culprits. 

The dispute went to voluntary arbitration under the parties' collective bargaining agreement. The Voluntary Arbitrator found the dismissal illegal, ruling that respondent failed to prove serious misconduct or loss of trust by substantial evidence and that the preventive suspension notices lacked specific charges; he ordered reinstatement with backwages, separation pay, nominal damages of PHP 30,000.00, and 10% attorney's fees. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the affidavits constituted circumstantial evidence linking the watchmen to the incident and that procedural due process had been substantially observed. The union elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

 

 

Whether respondent proved by substantial evidence that the watchmen committed serious misconduct justifying their dismissal.

NO. Misconduct warranting dismissal must be serious, must relate to the performance of the employee's duties such that the employee has become unfit to continue working for the employer, and must have been performed with wrongful intent. The burden of proving the validity of the dismissal rests on the employer and must be discharged by substantial evidence — such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. 

The only evidence linking the watchmen to the chopping incident was circumstantial, resting on affidavits of questionable credibility. The affiants did not personally know the watchmen and were unfamiliar with them, and the claimed February 19, 2016 identification meeting was not supported by any document — no letter of invitation, no attendance sheet, no minutes. Applying falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, the Court held that the credibility of the principal affiant had been severely tarnished. With neither direct nor circumstantial evidence amounting to substantial evidence, the charges of serious misconduct and loss of trust and confidence crumbled.

 

 

Whether respondent established loss of trust and confidence, given that the supporting affidavits were executed only after the dismissal had been effected.

NO. Dismissal for loss of trust and confidence requires proof that the employee held a position of trust and that an act justifying the loss of that trust occurred. The Court found this ground equally unsubstantiated, emphasizing the temporal defect in the employer's evidence: the supporting affidavits were all executed on July 19, 2016, whereas the termination notices had issued on April 12, 2016. Affidavits executed months after the fact could not have factored into, much less justified, the decision to dismiss. Coupled with the affiants' unfamiliarity with the watchmen and the absence of any documentary corroboration of the alleged identification meeting, the belated affidavits were insufficient to establish loss of trust and confidence.

 

 

Whether respondent complied with procedural due process notwithstanding the lack of particularity in the notices and the absence of confrontation of witnesses.

YES. The Court reaffirmed the twin-notice rule — a first notice apprising the employee of the particular acts or omissions for which dismissal is sought, and a second informing the employee of the decision to dismiss — and held that substantial, as opposed to strict, compliance should suffice. Although the first notice was lacking in particularity, it substantially complied because it was not couched in general terms but clearly stated that the watchmen were being preventively suspended pending investigation of the chopping incident of February 15, 2016, thereby serving the primordial purpose of the first notice, which is to sufficiently apprise the employee of the acts complained of. 

Two grievance meetings were thereafter conducted, affording the watchmen an opportunity to be heard; the chance given them, although limited, was a clear opportunity to be heard on the issue at hand. As to confrontation, the Court squarely held that the failure to confront the witnesses against them was not fatal, confrontation of witnesses being required only in adversarial criminal prosecutions and not in company investigations into the administrative liability of an employee. Procedural due process was thus substantially observed even though the substantive grounds for dismissal were not proven.

 

DISPOSITION: The Petition was PARTIALLY GRANTED. The Court reversed the Court of Appeals' finding that the dismissal was for a valid and just cause, while sustaining its finding of compliance with procedural due process. Respondent was ordered to pay the five watchmen full backwages, inclusive of allowances and other benefits or their monetary equivalent, computed from April 14, 2016 until finality, and separation pay in lieu of reinstatement at one month's salary for every year of service, a fraction of at least six months to be considered one whole year, computed from the date of hiring until finality, plus legal interest of 6% per annum on the total award from finality until full satisfaction.





CLICK HERE TO READ FULL TEXT