NDC TAGUM FOUNDATION, INC., et al v. EVELYN B.

SUMAKOTE
G.R. No. 190644 | June 13, 2016 | C.J. Sereno

Issue: Whether the respondent was given the opportunity to be heard and to present
her defense prior to her dismissal.

Rules: (incomplete)

1. Book VI, Rule I, Section 2(d) of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor
Code – standards of due process:

(i) A written notice served on the employee specifying the ground or

grounds for termination, and giving said employee reasonable
opportunity within which to explain his side.

(ii) A hearing or conference during which the employee concerned, with the
assistance of counsel if he so desires is given opportunity to respond to
the charge, present his evidence, or rebut the evidence presented against
him.

(iii) A written notice of termination served on the employee, indicating that

upon due consideration of all the circumstances, grounds have been
established to justify his termination.

2. King of Kings Transport v. Mamac – procedural requirements:

(1) The first written notice to be served on the employees should contain the
specific causes or grounds for termination against them, and a directive
that the employees are given the opportunity to submit their written
explanation within a reasonable period.

(2) During the hearing or conference, the employees are given the chance
to defend themselves personally, with the assistance of a
representative or counsel of their choice.

(3) A written notice of termination indicating that: (1) all circumstances

involving the charge against the employees have been considered; and (2)
grounds have been established to justify the severance of their
employment.
Analysis of Facts: (pa-check din, parang nahahabaan pa ako, hehe)

 Sumakote was a full-time instructor at the College of Nursing of petitioner NDC

Tagum Foundation when she was appointed as its Dean.
 While Sumakote was under contract with petitioner, the University of Mindanao
(UM) engaged her services as consultant in the latter’s Nursing Department.
 Thereafter, petitioner Natavio advised Sumakote that her engagement with UM
was an act of disloyalty, being in conflict with the interests of petitioner NDC
Tagum Foundation. Sumakote did not respond to Natavio, but declined UM’s
offer and decided to stay with NDC Tagum Foundation.
 Respondent Sumakote was then placed on preventive suspension for the
supposed moonlighting activities in the UM.
 Two days later, respondent Sumakote received a notice of her dismissal effective
immediately.
 LA: declared the dismissal illegal.
 NLRC: reversed the LA's decision. It ruled that respondent was dismissed for just
cause because her moonlighting activities constituted dishonesty, serious
misconduct, and gross neglect of duty.
 CA: affirmed the ruling of NLRC. However, it found that Sumakote was not
afforded the opportunity to be heard.

Analysis of Arguments:

Petitioners NDC Tagum, et al Respondent Sumakote

 That petitioner Natavio sent a  Sumakote denied the charges of
letter to Sumakote for her to neglect and averred that her
explain why she should not be engagement with the University of
dismissed on the ground of neglect Mindanao (UM) could not be
of duty because of her considered as moonlighting.
moonlighting activities.

 That petitioner Somoso notified  That petitioners notified Sumakote

Sumakote of the latter's of her dismissal from employment,
preventive suspension, while the day before its effectivity.
pending investigation, and
directed her to explain why she
should not be dismissed.

Conclusion: (I edited na rin sa slides)

No, the notices given by the respondent fell short of the minimum standard of
what constitutes an opportunity to be heard in administrative proceedings
As a basis for one's dismissal, an employee must be given a fair and reasonable chance
to defend oneself. There is breach in the procedural due process requirement when
petitioners did not call for a hearing and placed the respondent in preventive
suspension and while serving it, dismissed her.

As in the case of our client, Ruel Abila was also not given the opportunity to be
heard, i.e.,
o his explanations during the investigative hearing were never considered; and
o the notice of dismissal was issued in the guise of a Notice of Disciplinary Action,
which did not contain the requisites (1) grounds to justify the termination and
(2) the consideration of all circumstances involving the charge against
complainant Abila.