Salaw vs.

NLRC
G.R. No. 90786 – September 27, 1991
J. Sarmiento

Topic: Termination of Employment – By Employer – Procedural Requirements – Right to Counsel

Petitioner: Espero Santos Salaw
Respondents: NLRC, Associated Bank, Jose Tengco (Chairman of the Board), Rollie Tuazon (Manager)

Summary: Salaw, a credit investigator-appraiser Associated Bank, was dismissed based on a Sworn Statement extracted
from him which said that he stole 20 sewing machines and electric generators foreclosed by the company in collusion with
a coworker. He filed for illegal dismissal, which the LA granted, and the NLRC reversed. Ultimately, the Court held that
since the Sworn Statement was made without assistance of counsel, nor was he given the opportunity to present his own
evidence or any defense in the proceedings thereafter, the Bank violated the right to procedural due process afforded to him
by the LC and the Constitution.

Doctrine: The right to counsel, whether in administrative, criminal, or civil cases, is a Constitutional right that cannot be
dispensed with. Evidence acquired in violation of such is inadmissible.

Facts:
● Salaw was employed by Associated Bank as a credit investigator-appraiser.
○ Duties: inspecting, investigating, appraising, identifying the company's foreclosed assets, giving valuation
to its real properties, verifying the titles of properties mortgaged to them.
● The Criminal Investigation Service (CIS) of the Philippine Constabulary, NCR, extracted from Salaw, without the
assistance of counsel, a Sworn Statement which made it appear that the he, in cahoots with his co-employee
Madrigal who is a supervisor, sold 20 sewing machines and electric generators which had been foreclosed by the
company for Php60K, and divided the proceeds between the two of them.
● A month after, Salaw was requested by Tuazon, to appear before the bank's Personnel Discipline and Investigation
Committee (PDIC) in connection with the earlier case.
● When Salaw signified his readiness to appear before the PDIC, Tuazon sent him a letter stating that “[his] request
to appear before the PDIC [was] accepted” and that he is requested to come at a later schedule instead (a few months
later), without counsel or representative.
● Eventually, Salaw was terminated on the grounds of alleged serious misconduct or willful disobedience and fraud
or willful breach of the trust reposed on him.
● Salaw filed with the NLRC for illegal dismissal, and submitted an affidavit recanting the CIS Sworn Statement.
● LA: Illegal dismissal. Ordered company to reinstate Salaw to former/equivalent position without loss of seniority
rights and to pay him backwages and benefits from the time of dismissal until actual reinstatement.
● NLRC: Reversed the LA for lack of merit. Salaw’s MR likewise denied.

Issue + Held: W/N there was illegal dismissal – YES

● LC’s two-fold requirements for lawful dismissal of EE by ER: substantive and procedural. Both inviolable.
○ Substantive: for a valid or authorized cause as provided by law (LC 279, 281, 282-284).
○ Procedural: due process, i.e. notice and hearing.
● The requirement of notice is intended to inform the EE of the ER’s intent to dismiss him and the reason thereof,
while hearing affords EE the opportunity to answer the ER’s charges against him and defend himself therefrom
before dismissal is effected.
● LA said: The company’s initial act in convening their PDIC to investigate Salaw (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.
○ As the records show, he was denied this when his subsequent request to refute the allegations against him
was granted and a hearing was set without counsel or representative, as Tuazon’s letter said.
○ He was not given a chance to defend himself. LC IRR Rule 14, Book 5, Sec. 5 requires that “the employer
shall afford the worker ample opportunity to be heard and to defend himself with the assistance of his
representative, if he so desires.”
○ The company premised their action in dismissing Salaw on his supposed admission of the offense imputed
to him by CIS in its interrogation. The said admission was carried in a Sworn Statement signed by Salaw.
Aside from this, no other evidence was presented by the bank to establish Salaw’s culpability. Even the
minutes of the proceedings taken during the investigation were not presented.
 ● It is true that administrative and quasi-judicial bodies are not bound by the technical rules of procedure in the
adjudication cases. However, right to counsel, a basic requirement of due process provided in the Constitution,1
must be observed. This applies to a person under investigation in administrative, civil, or criminal proceedings.
● Based on the Ang Tibay case, cardinal primary rights to due process include:
○ Right to a hearing, including the right of the party interested or affected to present his own case and submit
evidence in support thereof
○ Duty on the part of the board to consider said evidence
○ Duty on the same to deliberate and to have something to support its decision
○ Evidence must be substantial (more than a mere scintilla)
○ Decision is rendered on the evidence presented in the hearing, or at least contained in the record and
disclosed to affected parties
○ NLRC must act on its own independent consideration of the law and facts of controversy
○ NLRC must render its decision such that the parties can know the various issues involved, and the reasons
for the decisions rendered
● Since the admission by Salaw in the Sworn Statement was made without the assistance of counsel and which was
made the sole basis for his dismissal, it cannot be admitted in evidence against him. The finding of guilt of the
PDIC has no leg to stand on, which impairs the above cardinal rights afforded to Salaw.
● The dismissal was characterized by undue haste. In labor cases, due process must not be subordinated to expediency
or dispatch.

Ruling: Judgment is rendered SETTING ASIDE the decision of NLRC, REINSTATING the decision of LA.

1
Art. 3, Sec. 12(1). 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 the person cannot afford the service of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing in the presence of counsel.
(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible evidence against him.