After a careful and exhaustive evaluation of the opposing stances of the parties taken together with their evidences, this Branch finds and so holds that complainant Teresita Vallejera was a regular employee of respondent, Cathedral School of Technology. And as intimated earlier, the resolution of the issue of employer-employee relationship will plays (sic) a decisive role in the other claims of complainant. The finding that the complainant was at regular employee of respondents is predicated on the fact that her assignment as a library aide was necessary and/or desirable in the business of the respondents which was operating an educational institution. Necessity and/or desirability is the gauge mandated by Art. 280 of the Labor Code as amended in determining the status of an employee. Needless to say a library (a)ide is practically indispensable in running a school. Her status, however, as a regular employee should not date back to her first connection with the school on February 11, 1981. It should only start from January 30, 1988. This becomes immediately apparent from Exh. "4" of respondent's position paper. In this document which is a letter application of complainant, she applies for the position of library aide. Simple logic will therefore show that she herself did not consider herself to be a regular employee prior to said date because why should she apply for the position if she already had an appointment and was already functioning as such a regular employee? In short, complainant prior to January 29, 1988 was a library aide of respondent only on a volunteer basis. The deduction that complainant was regular worker from January 30, 1988 is also bolstered by the fact that respondent Sr. Ma. Apolinaria Tambien herself, in her letter dated June 15, 1989 (Annex "E", complainant's position paper) admitted that she and complainant were employer and employee, and we quote:

January 29, 1988 plays a very significant date in this case because on this date complainant applied to be appointed as a regular library aide. She therefore was divesting herself of her voluntary status as such. And respondents who despite receipt of said letter-application continued to employ her is (sic) deemed to have waived the voluntariness of complainant's services. From January 20, (sic, 30) 1988, therefore, complainant became a regular worker. To rule otherwise would be the height of injustice as it would result in unjust enrichment on the part of respondent. Moreover, if respondent did not wish to hire complainant, then it should have done so upon receipt of paid letter-application. 9

Art. 282. Termination by employer. — An employer may terminate an employment for any of the following just causes:

(a) Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his employer or representative in connection with his work;

(b) Gross and habitual breach by the employee of his duties;

(c) Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized representative;

(d) Commission of a crime or offense by the employee against the person of his employer or any immediate member of his family or his duly authorized representative; and

(e) Other causes analogous to the foregoing.

. . . while the dismissal of complainant is illegal, it is not whimsical, malicious and wanton. The record shows that complainant is not without fault, for what precipitated her separation was her behavior and deportment in her inter-personal relationship with her co-employees and the students which respondents could not relish with approval. The decision to dismiss her was not personally ill-motivated. 13

Under the Labor Code, as amended, the requirements of lawful dismissal of an employee by his employer are two-fold: the substantive and the procedural. Not only must the dismissal be for a valid or authorized cause as provided by law (Arts. 279, 281, 282-284), but the rudimentary requirements of due process — notice and hearing— must also be observed before an employee may be dismissed (Art. 277 [b]). One cannot go without the other, for otherwise the termination would, in the eyes of the law, be illegal. 14

It is likewise the finding (of) and this Branch so holds that complainant was illegally dismissed. This finding is anchored on the lack of due process. In this case complainant was not afforded the opportunity to defend herself in a hearing called for the purpose. She was just summarily dismissed contrary to the provision(s) of Batas Pambansa Bilang 130 and its Implementing Rules. 15

The Court holds that the policy of ordering the reinstatement to the service of an employee without loss of seniority and the payment of his wages during the period of his separation until his actual reinstatement but not exceeding three (3) years without qualification or deduction, when it appears he was not afforded due process, although his dismissal was found to be for just and authorized cause in an appropriate proceeding in the Ministry of Labor and Employment, should be re-examined. It will be highly prejudicial to the interests of the employer to impose on him the services of an employee who has been shown to be guilty of the charges that warranted his dismissal from employment. Indeed, it will demoralize the rank and file if the underserving, if not undesirable, remains in the service.

. . . Under the circumstances the dismissal of the private respondent for just cause should be maintained. He has no right to return to his former employer.

However, the petitioner must nevertheless be held to account for failure to extend to private respondent his right to an investigation before causing his dismissal. The rule is explicit as above discussed. The dismissal of an employee must be for just or authorized cause and after due process. Petitioner committed an infraction of the second requirement. Thus, it must be imposed a sanction for its failure to give a formal notice and conduct an investigation as required by law before dismissing petitioner from employment. Considering the circumstances of this case petitioner must indemnify the private respondent the amount of P1,000.00. The measure of this award depends on the fact of each case and the gravity of the omission committed by the employer. (Emphasis supplied.)

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 employees and otherwise granting him such other concomitant relief as is appropriate in the premises.