Saturday, February 16, 2008 Labor Case Digest: Due process By Dominador A. Almirante
Petitioner Marilou S. Genuino filed a complaint against respondent Citibank N.A. for illegal dismissal suspension and illegal dismissal with damages. She contended that Citibank failed to observe procedural due process and this failure is an indication that there were no valid grounds in dismissing her. Was the contention meritorious?
Ruling: Yes.
The Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Labor Code provide that any employer seeking to dismiss a worker shall furnish the latter a written notice stating the particular acts or omissions constituting the grounds for dismissal. The purpose of this notice is to sufficiently apprise the employee of the acts complained of and enable him/her to prepare his/her defense.
In this case, the letters dated Aug. 23, Sept. 13 and 20, 1993 sent by Citibank did not specify the particular acts or omissions allegedly committed by Genuino. The Aug. 23, 1993 letter charged Genuino with having “some knowledge and/or involvement” in some transactions “which have the appearance of being irregular at the least, and may even be fraudulent.” The Sept. 13, 1993 letter, on the other hand, mentioned “irregular transactions” involving Global and “Mr. Dante Santos, using the facilities of their family corporations (Torrance and Global) appear to have participated in the diversion of bank clients’ funds from Citibank to, and investment thereof in other companies and that they made money in the process. In violation of the conflict of law rule (sic).”
The extent of Genuino’s alleged knowledge and participation in the diversion of bank’s clients’ funds, manner of diversion and amounts involved, the acts attributed to Genuino that conflicted with the bank’s interests; and the circumstances surrounding the alleged irregular transactions, were not specified in the notices/letters.
While the bank gave Genuino an opportunity to deny the truth of the allegations in writing and participate in the administrative investigation, the fact remains that the charges were too general to enable Genuino to intelligently and adequately prepare her defense. (Marilou S. Genuino NLRC, et. al., G.R. Nos. 142732-33, Dec. 4, 2007).
