Sie sind auf Seite 1von 1

G.R. No. 113271 October 16, 1997 WATEROUS DRUG CORPORATION and MS.

EMMA CO, -vsNATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and ANTONIA MELODIA CATOLICO, FACTS: Respondent Catolico was hired as a pharmacist by Petitioner Waterous Drug Corporation. Her main tasks were selling drugs and making requisitions when supplies were low. A case in point is medicine purchased under the two Purchase Orders of Voren tablets. The two Purchase Orders represents different sales price. The said price discrepancy was returned/refunded to Respondent Catolico as evidence in Check No. 892068 dated No. 9, 1989. Respondent Catolico denied having received the check contrary on Ms. Saldanas confirmation that Respondent Catolicos even asked her if she opened the envelope containing the check. It appears that the amount in question had been pocketed by Respondent Catolico It being so, Respondent Catolico requested to explain her side within twenty-four hours on such irregularity. Catolico asked for additional time to give her explanation, and she was granted a 48-hour extension from February 1 to 3, 1990. However, on February 2, 1990 or before the said expiration of the granted extension, she was place on preventive suspension and subsequently terminated as evidence in Memorandum of March 5, 1990 without any hearing. ISSUE: Whether or not Catolico was afforded due process when she was place under preventive suspension and eventually terminated in the absence of any hearing. RULING: The Supreme Court said that Respondent Catolico was not given an opportunity to explain her side and she was unjustly dismissed as evidence in Memorandum dated March 5, 1990. It was further explained by the Supreme Court that in an unjustly dismissal of an employee, the burden is on the employer to prove just and valid cause for dismissing an employee, and its failure to discharge that burden would result in a finding that the dismissal is unjustified. In this case Waterous proved unequal to the task.