TORRES, NICOLE

Article III, Section 1. Dismissal in Private Sector.

SALAW V NLRC
202 SCRA 7
September 27, 1991
FACTS:
Herein petitioner Salaw was employed by respondent bank as a credit investigator-appraiser. The Criminal
Investigation Service of the Philippine Constabulary extracted from the petitioner, without the assistance of counsel,
a sworn statement revealing his illegal actions for acquiring money together with a co-employee by selling 20
sewing machines and electric generators which had been foreclosed by the Bank for P60,000.00, and dividing the
proceeds thereof in equal shares between the two of them. On December 5, 1984, petitioner requested to appear
before the banks Personnel Discipline and Investigation Committee. His request was granted. However, the
committee added that Salaw must come without counsel. On April 1, 1985 Salaw was terminated for alleged serious
misconduct or willful disobedience and fraud. Subsequently, he filed a complaint of illegal dismissal with the
NLRC. Labor arbiter Villarente, Jr. rendered the decision that Salaw was illegally dismissed.
Issue:
Whether or not the dismissal of petitioner by private respondents was legally justified?
Ruling:
No. Under the Labor Code, for a dismissal to be legal, it must follow the 2-fold requirements, which are substantive
and procedural. Not only must the dismissal be for a valid cause as provided by law, but the rudimentary
requirements of due process - notice and hearing must also be observed. The petitioner was terminated without due
process of law because he was not given the right to a proper hearing. He was denied of his constitutional right when
his subsequent request to refute the allegations against him was granted and a hearing was set without counsel or
representative. As stated in section 12, Article 3 of the Constitution any person under investigation for the
commission of an offense shall have the right to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own
choice. If a person cannot afford the service of counsel, he must be provided with one.
The right to counsel, a very basic requirement of substantive due process, has to be observed. Indeed, the rights to
counsel and to due process of law are two of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the 1987 Constitution to any
person under investigation, be the proceeding administrative, civil, or criminal.