Scribd
Upload
113 views2 pages

Salaw v. NLRC Case Digest Summary

This case discusses the illegal dismissal of Espero Salaw from his job as a credit investigator at Associated Bank. Salaw was alleged to have conspired to sell foreclosed assets and split the proceeds with a coworker. He was interrogated by the police without legal counsel. Later, the bank requested he appear before an investigation committee, but did not allow him to present his own defense or examine evidence against him. The labor arbiter ruled in Salaw's favor, but the NLRC reversed this. The Supreme Court found Salaw's dismissal was illegal because the bank did not follow due process by denying him the opportunity to defend himself during the investigation.

Uploaded by

Jhuniven Orantes
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
113 views2 pages

Salaw v. NLRC Case Digest Summary

This case discusses the illegal dismissal of Espero Salaw from his job as a credit investigator at Associated Bank. Salaw was alleged to have conspired to sell foreclosed assets and split the proceeds with a coworker. He was interrogated by the police without legal counsel. Later, the bank requested he appear before an investigation committee, but did not allow him to present his own defense or examine evidence against him. The labor arbiter ruled in Salaw's favor, but the NLRC reversed this. The Supreme Court found Salaw's dismissal was illegal because the bank did not follow due process by denying him the opportunity to defend himself during the investigation.

Uploaded by

Jhuniven Orantes
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

SALAW V.

NLRC - CASE DIGEST - CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

SALAW V. NLRC G.R. No. 90786 September 27, 1991

FACTS:

Espero Santos Salaw was a credit investigator-appraiser of herein respondent Associated Bank.

His duties included inspecting, investigating, appraising, and identifying the company's foreclosed assets;
giving valuation to its real properties and verifying the genuineness and encumbrances of the titles of
properties mortgaged to the respondents.

Salaw and a fellow employee were alleged to have conspired in selling twenty (20) sewing machines and
electric generators which had been foreclosed by the respondent bank from Worldwide Garment and
L.P. Money Garment, for P60,000.00, and divided the proceeds thereof in equal shares of P30,000.00
between the two of them. The Criminal Investigation Service (CIS) of the Philippine Constabulary
extracted Sworn Statement from them without the assistance of a counsel.

Rollie Tuazon, the bank manager, requested petitioner to appear before the bank's Personnel Discipline
and Investigation Committee (PDIC) which petitioner attended and 3 months after, his termination
became effective for alleged serious misconduct or willful disobedience and fraud or willful breach of
the trust reposed on him by the private respondents.

Petitioner filed an illegal dismissal case against respondent and likewise submitted an affidavit recanting
his Sworn Statement before the CIS.

The labor arbiter ruled in favor of the petitioner.

Private respondents appealed to the NLRC and reversed the LA’s decision.
Petitioner’s MR was denied.

Hence, this petition.

ISSUE:

WON petitioner’s dismissal was legally justified.

HELD:

NO. Under the Labor Code, as amended, the requirements for the lawful dismissal of an employee by his
employer are two-fold: the substantive and the procedural. Not only must the dismissal be for a valid or
authorized cause as provided by law (Articles 279, 281, 282-284, New Labor Code), but the rudimentary
requirements of due process — notice and hearing — must also be observed before an employee may
be dismissed. One does not suffice; without their concurrence, the terminate would, in the eyes of the
law, be illegal.

As to the LA’s finding, petitioner was terminated without the benefit of due process of law. The
respondents' initial act in convening their Personnel Discipline and Investigation Committee (PDIC) to
investigate complainant (after the CIS experience) would have complied with the demands of due
process had complainant been given the opportunity to present his own defense and confront the
witnesses, if any, and examine the evidence against him. But as the records clearly show, the
complainant was denied that constitutional right when his subsequent request refute the allegations
against him was granted and a hearing was set "without counsel or representative.

You might also like