11. RAMON B. FORMANTES vs DUNCAN PHARMACEUTICALS, PHILS., INC.

,
Respondent. G.R. No. 170661. December 4, 2009, PERALTA, JJ.

FACTS:
Ramon B. Formantes, the Acting District Manager of respondent for the Ilocos
District, filed a case for illegal suspension and constructive dismissal against
respondent company after the company did not allow him to attend the meetings and
activities, withheld his salary, and directed one of its district managers to take over his
position and functions without prior notice to him. The company did the foregoing upon
a complaint of one of its medical representative, Cynthia Magat, on the attempt by
Ramon Formantes to sexually force himself upon his subordinate. The Labor Arbiter
rendered decision finding the dismissal of Ramon Formantes valid for an attempt to
sexually abuse Cynthia Magat but imposing a penalty on respondent for its failure to
give formal notice and conduct the necessary investigation before dismissing petitioner.
The petitioner was not satisfied about the decision of the Labor Arbiter. The petitioner
appealed to the NLRC. NLRC affirmed the decision of the Labor Arbiter. Petitioner went
to the Court of Appeals. The CA affirmed the NLRC’s decision with modification of the
penalty imposed against the respondent from P1,000.00 to P5,000.00.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the dismissal of petitioner on the ground of sexual abuse is
proper when the charge against him, stated in the termination letter, was
insubordination?

RULING:
Yes. In Rubberworld (Phils.), Inc. v. NLRC, we held that: It is now axiomatic that
if just cause for termination of employment actually exists and is established by
substantial evidence in the course of the proceedings before the Labor Arbiter, the fact
that the employer failed, prior to such termination, to accord to the discharged employee
the right of formal notice of the charge or charges against him and a right to ventilate his
side with respect thereto, will not operate to eradicate said just cause so as to impose
on the employer the obligation of reinstating the employee and otherwise granting him
such other concomitant relief as is appropriate in the premises. x x x Although petitioner
was dismissed from work by the respondent on the ground of insubordination, this Court
cannot close its eyes to the fact that the ground of sexual abuse committed against
petitioner's subordinate actually exists and was established by substantial evidence
before the LA.

As a manager, petitioner enjoyed the full trust and confidence of respondent and
his subordinates. By committing sexual abuse against his subordinate, he clearly
demonstrated his lack of fitness to continue working as a managerial employee and
deserves the punishment of dismissal from the service. Aside from the findings of
sexual abuse, petitioner is also guilty of insubordination. Thus, we hold the dismissal as
valid, but we find that there was non-compliance with the twin procedural requirements
of notice and hearing for a lawful dismissal.
 WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision and Resolution of the Court
of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 57528 are AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATIONthat the
sanction imposed on respondent for non-compliance with statutory due process is
increased from P5,000.00 to P30,000.00.