Facts: Antonia Catolico, pharmacist of Waterous Drug Corporation.

On 31 July 1989, Catolico received 2 memoranda from WATEROUS Vice President-General Manager Emma Co warning her not to (1) dispense medicine to employees chargeable to the latter's accounts and (2) to negotiate with suppliers of medicine without consulting the Purchasing Department, as this would impair the company's control of purchases& besides she was not authorized to deal directly with the suppliers. 29 January 1990, WATEROUS Control Clerk Eugenio Valdez informed Co that he noticed an irregularity involving Catolico &Yung Shin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (YSP): YSP Sales Invoice No. 266 for purchase of 10 bottles of Voren tablets at P384/unit . Previous Purchase Order showed P320/unit while P.O. is priced at P384/unit or an over price of P64 per bottle. Estrelita Reyes, YSP Accounting Dept. confirmed difference through Check voucher paid to Catolico through China Bank check dated Nov. 9, 1989. C denied, but Ms. Saldana of EDRC Espana Pharmacy Clerk confirmed C received it, and even asked if she opened the envelope containing the check, but S said talagang ganyan, bukas. Catolico was asked to explain within 24 hrs, her side of the reported irregularity. Catolico asked for additional time to give her explanation,&was granted a 48-hour

extension from 1 to 3 February 1990. But on 2 February 1990, she was informed that effective 6 February 1990 to 7 March 1990, she would be placed on preventive suspension to protect companys interests. C requested access to the file containing Sales Invoice No. 266 for her to make a satisfactory explanation. She protested that Saldaa invaded her privacy when S opened an envelope addressed to Catolico. C, through her counsel, explained that the check she received from YSP was a Christmas gift and not a "refund of overprice." She also averred that the preventive suspension was ill-motivated, as it sprang from an earlier incident between her and Co's secretary, Irene Soliven. On 5 March 1990,C was notified of her termination. On 5 May 1990, Catolico filed before the Labor Arbiter a complaint for unfair labor practice, illegal dismissal, and illegal suspension. In his decision of 10 May 1993, Labor Arbiter Lopez found no proof of unfair labor practice against petitioners, but decided in favor of Catolico because petitioners failed to "prove what alleged as complainant's dishonesty," and to show that any investigation was conducted. He declared the dismissal and suspension illegal but disallowed reinstatement.

Petitioners urged the NLRC to set it aside because the Labor Arbiter erred in the decision. 30 September 1993, NLRC affirmed the findings of the Labor Arbiter on the ground that petitioners were not able to prove just cause for dismissal. It found that petitioner's only evidence of the check of P640.00 drawn by YSP in favor of complainant, which her coemployee saw when the latter opened the envelope. But, it declared that the check was inadmissible in evidence pursuant to Sections 2 and 3(1 and 2) of Article III of the Constitution (Fruit of the poisonous tree). NLRC then dismissed the appeal for lack of merit, but modified the dispositive portion of the appealed decision by deleting the award for illegal suspension as the same was already included in the computation of the aggregate of the awards in the amount of P35,401.86. Issue: W/N the dismissal of the private respondent NLRC erred in applying Sec 3, Art III of the Constitution NO Held: Catolico asserts that petitioners' evidence is too "flimsy" to justify dismissal. The check in issue was given to her, and she had no duty to turn it over to her employer. Company rules do not prohibit an employee from accepting gifts from clients,& there is no indication in the contentious check that it was meant as a refund for overpriced medicines. Besides, the

check was discovered in violation of the constitutional provision on the right to privacy and communication; hence, as correctly held by the NLRC, it was inadmissible in evidence. Catolico was denied due process. In the case at bar, although Catolico was given an opportunity to explain her side, she was then immediately dismissed.No hearing was ever conducted. 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 dismissal is unjustified. It clearly appears then that Catolico's dismissal was based on hearsay information. Catolico's dismissal then was obviously grounded on mere suspicion, which in no case can justify an employee's dismissal. Suspicion is not among the valid causes provided by the Labor Code for the termination of employment. As regards the constitutional violation upon which the NLRC anchored its decision, that the Bill of Rights does not protect citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures perpetrated by private individuals (People v. Marti). 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. It has been determined by the Labor Arbiter that

Catolico's reinstatement would not be to the best interest of the parties, he correctly awarded separation pay to Catolico, computed one-half month's salary for every yr of service.