THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 123880. February 23, 1999]
MARANAW HOTELS AND RESORT CORPORATION, (Owner of Century
Park Sheraton Manila), petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION and EDDIE DAMALERIO, respondents.
D E C I S I O N
PURISIMA, J.:
This special civil action for certiorari
under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court seeks to annul and set aside the
Decision, dated September 18, 1995, of the National Labor Relations Commission
(NLRC)[1], and the Order[2], dated January 30, 1996, denying petitioner's motion
for reconsideration in NLRC-NCR-CA No. 005642-93, on the ground of lack or
excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion.
On April 2, 1992, Eddie Damalerio
(Damalerio), a room attendant of the Century Park Sheraton Hotel, operated by
Maranaw Hotel and Resort Corporation, was seen by hotel guest Jamie Glaser
(Glaser) with left hand inside the latter's suitcase. Confronted with what he was doing, Damalerio explained that he
was trying to tidy up the room. Not
satisfied with the explanation of Damalerio, Glaser lodged a written complaint
before William D. Despuig, shift-in-charge of security of the hotel. Glaser also reported that Damalerio had
previously asked from him souvenirs, cassettes, and other giveaways. The complaint was later brought by Despuig
to the attention of Major Eddie Buluran, chief of Security of the hotel.
On April 3, 1992, Damalerio was
given a Disciplinary Action Notice (DAN).
The next day, an administrative hearing was conducted on the
matter. Among those present at the
hearing were: 1) Lourdes Ricardo (room attendant), 2) Angelito Torres (floor
supervisor), 3) Major Eddie Buluran (chief of security), 4)
Susan Dino (Personnel representative), 5) Alfredo San Gabriel (senior
floor supervisor) and 6) Ben Hur Amador (union representative).
Taking the witness stand on his
own behalf, Damalerio denied the accusation against him, theorizing that when
he found the room of Glaser in disarray, and was about to make the bed, he
noticed some belongings, such as socks and T-shirts of the said hotel guest
scattered around, so much so that he thought of placing the same in his
luggage. While doing so, Glaser
arrived. When asked by the latter if
something was wrong, he (Damalerio) said "I'm just cleaning your room,"
and Glaser remarked, "Good work," and then, the two of
them chatted about Glaser's concert at the Araneta Coliseum.
On April 13, 1992, Damalerio
received a memorandum[3] issued by Alfredo San Gabriel, Sr., Floor Supervisor,
bearing the approval of Nicolas R. Kirit, Executive Housekeeper, stating that
he (Damalerio) was found to have committed qualified theft in violation of
House Rule No. 1, Section 3 of Hotel Rules and Regulations. The same memorandum served as a notice of
termination of his employment.
On May 19,1992, Damalerio filed
with the Labor Arbiter a Complaint for illegal dismissal against the
petitioner.
On August 20, 1993, after the
parties had sent in their position papers, Labor Arbiter Ceferina J. Diosana
decided the case; disposing, thus:
"WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding the
dismissal of complainant to be illegal and ordering the respondents to
reinstate him to his former or equivalent position without loss of
seniority rights and with backwages from April 15, 1992 when he was
preventively suspended up to actual reinstatement and other benefits,
including but not limited to his share in the charges and/or tips
which he failed to receive, and all other CBA benefits that have accrued
since his dismissal.
SO ORDERED.”
From the aforesaid Labor Arbiter's
disposition, the petitioner appealed to the NLRC, which modified the appealed
decision by giving petitioner the option of paying Damalerio a separation pay
equivalent to one (1) month pay for every year of service, instead of reinstating
him.
On November 22, 1995, petitioner
interposed a motion for reconsideration but to no avail. NLRC denied the same on January 30, 1996.
Undaunted, petitioner has come to
this Court via the present petition; posing the questions:
1. WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT NLRC COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF JURISDICTION IN HOLDING THAT PETITIONER FAILED TO ADDUCE CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF ITS VERSION OF THE INCIDENT, CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD INELUCTABLY SHOWS THAT PRIVATE RESPONDENT WAS CAUGHT IN FLAGRANTE DELICTO; and
2. WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT NLRC COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF JURISDICTION IN NOT REVERSING THAT PORTION OF THE DECISION OF THE LABOR ARBITER ORDERING HEREIN PETITIONER TO PAY PRIVATE RESPONDENT HIS SHARE IN THE SERVICE CHARGE WHICH WAS COLLECTED DURING THE TIME HE WAS NOT WORKING IN THE HOTEL.
The petition is barren of merit.
Petitioner's theory that Damalerio
was caught committing qualified theft in flagrante delicto is anemic of
evidentiary support. Records disclose
petitioner's failure to substantiate such imputation against him. During the investigation presided over by
the Labor Arbiter, Damalerio narrated a plausible and satisfactory explanation
for his behavior complained of.
According to him, he was then cleaning the hotel room of Glaser, and
while in the process of placing inside the luggage the personal belongings of
Glaser scattered near the bed, the latter entered the room. Glaser did not bother to testify as all his
things were intact.
Although it was not completely
proper for Damalerio to be touching the things of a hotel guest while cleaning
the hotel rooms, personal belongings of hotel guests being off-limits to
roomboys, under the attendant facts and circumstances, we believe that the
dismissal of Damalerio was unwarranted.
To be sure, the investigation held by the hotel security people did not
unearth enough evidence of culpability.
It bears repeating that subject hotel guest lost nothing. Albeit petitioner may have reasons to doubt
the honesty and trustworthiness of Damalerio, as a result of what happened,
absent sufficient proof of guilt, he (Damalerio), who is a rank-and-file
employee, cannot be legally dismissed.[4] Unsubstantiated suspicions and baseless conclusions
by employers are not legal justification for dismissing employees. The burden of proving the existence of a
valid and authorized cause of termination is on the employer.[5] Any doubt should be resolved in favor of the
employee, in keeping with the principle of social justice enshrined in the
Constitution.[6]
All things studiedly considered
and viewed in proper perspective, the dismissal of Damalerio, under the
premises, cannot be countenanced.
As regards the share of Damalerio
in the service charges collected during the period of his preventive
suspension, the same form part of his earnings, and his dismissal having been
adjudged to be illegal, he is entitled not only to full backwages but also to
other benefits, including a just share in the service charges, to be computed
from the start of his preventive suspension until his reinstatement.
However, mindful of the animosity
and strained relations between the parties, emanating from this litigation, we
uphold the ruling a quo that in lieu of reinstatement, separation
pay may be given to the private respondent, at the rate of one (1) month pay
for every year of service. Should
petitioner opt in favor of separation pay, the private respondent shall no
longer be entitled to share in the service charges collected during his
preventive suspension.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED and the Court
affirms the questioned Decision of the National Labor Relations Commission, to
be implemented according to law and this disposition. No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
Romero (Chairman), Panganiban, and Gonzaga-Reyes, JJ., concur.
Vitug, J., on official leave.