Waterous Drug Corp. vs.

NLRC, GR113271

Facts:

The petitioner, Waterous Drug Corporation, terminated the respondent, Catolico,

after a series of issuance of memorandum and the latter’s preventive suspension. The
petitioner alleged that respondent was selling the medicine in an overpriced. To
support the claim, an affidavit was executed wherein the Control Clerk Eugenio C.
Valdez stated, among others, that the respondent made an under the table deal with
YSP Phils. to supply WDRC needed medicines like Voren tablets at a jack-up price of
P384.00 per bottle of 50 mg. which has a previous price of only P320.00. However,
the testimony was held by the Supreme Court as a hearsay evidence, and therefore, it
carries no probative value. Another evidence asserted by the petitioner was the open
envelope containing P640.00 that was given to the respondent by Ms. Saldana. Said
amount was alleged to be the refund of the overpriced medicines. The petitioner
believed that the amount was pocketed by the respondent. After the termination of the
respondent, she filed a complaint for unfair labor practice, illegal dismissal, and
illegal suspension before the Office of the Labor Arbiter. The LA render judgment in
favor of the respondent. The reason, among others, was that the envelope was
considered to be an inadmissible evidence as it violated the Section 3, Article III of
the Constitution.

Issue:

Whether or not the LA erred in applying Section 3, Article III of the 1987
Constitution.

Ruling:

Yes. The Court held, “As regards the constitutional violation upon which the
NLRC anchored its decision, we find no reason to revise the doctrine laid down in
People vs. Marti that the Bill of Rights does not protect citizens from unreasonable
searches and seizures perpetrated by private individuals. It is not true, as counsel for
Catolico claims, that the citizens have no recourse against such assaults. On the
contrary, and as said counsel admits, such an invasion gives rise to both criminal and
civil liabilities.”