J. Gonzales v NLRC and Ateneo de Davao.

GR 125735 August 26, 1999

Facts:

Sometime in 1991 petitioner was sent a letter dated April 11, 1991 informing her that she
has been charged by two parents for alleged use of corporal punishments on her students.
Petitioner questions the fact that respondent only confronted her about the complaint two years
after. On March 31, 1993 petitioner demanded from Fr. Oscar Millar, S.J., that she be
investigated and that she be formally be informed of the complaint against her. On June 9, 1993
petitioner had been informed that an investigative committee had been formed and was
furnished of the schedule of hearings, rules of procedure, and sworn affidavits of the students
who testified against her. Petitioner questioned the fact why she wasnt allowed to be
accompanied or represented by a legal counsel, and that she could only be advised by one.
Thus, petitioner declined to take part in the investigation conducted by the said committee.
Subsequently the said committee decided to dismiss herein respondent. Herein respondent
decided to lodge a complaint dfor illegal dismissal with the NLRC, wherein after trial, Executive
Labor Arbiter Conchita J. Martinez opined that such dismissal was illegal for failure to establish
substantial evidence as to the guilt of the accused. However, the NLRC sustained the dismissal
of herein petitioner as valid and legal.

Issue:

WoN the NLRC erred in holding that the said dismissal of the petitioner was valid and legal,
and that such due process was rightfully accorded to herein petitioner.

Held:

No,

Ample opportunity must have been afforded to the petitioner to defend herself either by
herself or through the assistance of counsel. She must have also been afforded the right to
confront the witnesses against her and to properly know the nature of her offense. Petitioner
was denied compliance to these requisites, which consequently resulted to her, demanding to
revise the rules of procedure laid down by the investigative committee