202 Manuel v.
NC Construction 282 scra 326 Substantial evidence or such relevant evidence which a reasonable
Topic: Administrative Investigation
Summary: the security guards of N.C. Construction Supply caught an
employee stealing from the company premises. The said employee then
admitted that the incident was part of a series of theft involving four other
employees, on of whom is Manuel. the four former employees sued N.C.
Construction for illegal dismissal after the interrogation made by NC.
Facts: In June 1995, the security guards of N.C. Construction Supply
caught an employee stealing from the company premises. The said
employee then admitted that the incident was part of a series of theft
involving four other employees, namely, Eddie Manuel, Romeo Bana,
Rogelio Pagtama, Jr., and Joel Rea. The four were then invited to the
police station for questioning. The owner of N.C. Construction sent his
lawyer, Atty. Ramon Reyes to interrogate the four employees.
Manuel et al admitted the crime imputed against them before
Atty. Reyes. They agreed that in exchange for N.C. Construction not
filing a case, they will resign as employees instead. But after resigning,
the four former employees sued N.C. Construction for illegal dismissal.
They now claim that their admission made in the police station before
Atty. Reyes was coerced by the lawyer and that they were without the
assistance of counsel which is violative of their constitutional rights.
Issue: Whether or not Manuel et al were violated by their constitutional
rights.
Held: the court reject petitioners’ argument that said admission is
inadmissible as evidence against them under Section 12, Article III of
the 1987 Constitution. The right to counsel under Section 12 of the Bill
of Rights is meant to protect a suspect in a criminal case under custodial
investigation. Custodial investigation is the stage where the police
investigation is no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime but
has begun to focus on a particular suspect who had been taken into
custody by the police to carry out a process of interrogation that lends
itself to elicit incriminating statements
What is the quantum of proof needed?
mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion and not proof
beyond reasonable doubt as in criminal case.
Anent the issue of threat and intimidation, there was no sufficient proof
presented by Manuel et al to prove that the lawyer coerced them to make
the admission.
Anent the issue that Atty. Reyes’s interrogation of them without the
presence of counsel if violative of their constitutional rights, such
argument is misplaced. The right to counsel accorded by the
Constitution only applies to criminal cases and only on custodial
investigations. In this case, this is not a criminal case and Manuel et al
were not under custodial investigation when they were interrogated by
Atty. Reyes. It is also of no moment that Atty. Reyes’s interrogation
happened in a police station. What Atty. Reyes did was a private
administrative investigation for the interest of his employer, the N.C.
Construction.
However, Manuel et al are entitled to damages (P1,000.00 each)
because it appears that although they were dismissed for a just cause,
their dismissal was without the proper procedure (twin-notice rule not
observed by NC Construction). The two-notice rule provides:
The employer must furnish the worker with two written notices before
termination of employment can be legally effected:
(1) notice which apprises the employee of the particular acts or
omissions for which his dismissal is sought, and
(2) the subsequent notice which informs the employee of the employer’s
decision to dismiss him.
Same; Same; Constitutional Law; Bill of Rights; The exclusionary
rule under paragraph (3), Section 12 of the Bill of Rights applies only to
admissions made in a criminal investigation but not to those made in an
administrative investigation. —We also reject petitioners’ argument that
said admission is inadmissible as evidence against them under Section
12, Article III of the 1987 Constitution. The right to counsel under Section
12 of the Bill of Rights is meant to protect a suspect in a criminal case
under custodial investigation. Custodial investigation is the stage where
the police investigation is no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved
crime but has begun to focus on a particular suspect who had been
taken into custody by the police to carry out a process of interrogation
that lends itself to elicit incriminating statements. It is when questions
are initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken
into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any
significant way. The right to counsel attaches only upon the start of such
investigation. Therefore, the exclusionary rule under paragraph (3),
Section 12 of the Bill of Rights applies only to admissions made in a
criminal investigation but not to those made in an administrative
investigation.

Same; Same; Same; Same; The investigation was merely an

administrative investigation conducted by the employer, not a criminal
investigation.—In the case at bar, the admission was made by
petitioners during the course of the investigation conducted by private
respondents’ counsel to determine whether there is sufficient ground to
terminate their employment. Petitioners were not under custodial
investigation as they were not yet accused by the police of committing a
crime. The investigation was merely an administrative investigation
conducted by the employer, not a criminal investigation. The questions
were propounded by the employer’s lawyer, not by police officers. The
fact that the investigation was conducted at the police station did not
necessarily put petitioners under custodial investigation as the venue of
the investigation was merely incidental. Hence, the admissions made by
petitioners during such investigation may be used as evidence to justify
their dismissal.