JUANCHO ROSITES, SR. & FERNANDO ESCUETA, PETITIONERS, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, MAKATI SHANGRI-LA HOTEL MANILA & DARIO DE LOS REYES, HR MANAGER, RESPONDENTS.

Rosites versus National Labor Relations Commission

The Case

This is a labor case about two hotel room attendants, Juancho Rosites, Senior, and Fernando Escueta, who were dismissed by the Makati Shangri-La Hotel Manila after a complimentary bottle of red wine went missing from the hotel's amenities and was later found hidden in Rosites's trolley. The two employees sued for illegal dismissal, insisting that the whole thing was nothing more than a practical joke. The case matters because it gathers in one decision the classic labor-law questions a bar candidate must master: the just causes for termination, the meaning of due process in administrative investigations, the validity of preventive suspension, and the standard of review when the National Labor Relations Commission's findings are brought to the Supreme Court.

Procedural History

Rosites and Escueta each filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the Labor Arbiter, praying for reinstatement, backwages, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees. Labor Arbiter Florentino Darlucio dismissed the complaints for lack of merit, finding just cause in the termination. The employees appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission, which affirmed the Labor Arbiter in a decision dated November 28, 2003. Their motion for reconsideration was denied in a resolution dated January 24, 2006, both for having been filed out of time and for lack of merit. The employees then went up to the Supreme Court by a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, alleging grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

Facts

Rosites had been employed since March 1993 as a Service Assistant Housekeeping Roomboy. On August 5, 2002, he was assigned to two rooms on the thirteenth floor and three rooms on the fifteenth floor. On his way to his assignment, Escueta asked him, within the hearing of three other employees, to deliver a complimentary bottle of red wine to Room 1606. Rosites took the instruction seriously and intended to deliver the wine. He then went to Room 1310 to attend to a checking-out guest, and when the Executive Assistant for Housekeeping, Perry Avecilla, asked him about the bottle, he handed it over, saying he had been asked to deliver it to Room 1606.

It turned out that the bottle was part of the hotel's Golden Circle amenities being set up by mini bar attendant Romeo Laguerta, who had placed it on top of a cabinet and later found it missing. The bottle was recovered from Rosites's trolley, hidden behind folded pillow cases. Both employees were placed under preventive suspension for thirty days and ordered to explain in writing. Rosites said he had no intention to steal and was merely following Escueta's instruction. Escueta admitted taking the bottle and giving it to Rosites but claimed it was a practical joke.

An administrative investigation was conducted on August 7, 2002. The three co-employees whom the petitioners claimed had heard the joke testified that they did not hear Escueta instruct Rosites in a joking manner. The hotel concluded that there was a conspiracy to take and conceal the wine, and terminated both employees for violation of its Code of Discipline, citing stealing, concealing hotel property, and loss of confidence.

Issues

• Whether or not there was a just or authorized cause under Article 282 of the Labor Code to validly terminate the petitioners' employment.
• Whether or not the petitioners were afforded due process in the administrative investigation, including the absence of counsel.
• Whether or not the thirty-day preventive suspension imposed on the petitioners was valid.
• Whether or not the National Labor Relations Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion for reconsideration as filed out of time.

Applicable Provisions

Article 282 of the Labor Code, as quoted in the decision, provides:

ART. 282. TERMINATION BY EMPLOYER. – An employer may terminate an employment for any of the following causes: Serious Misconduct or willful Disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his employer or representative in connection with his work; Gross and habitual Neglect by the employee of his duties; Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized representative; 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 Other causes analogous to the foregoing.

This is the provision against which the validity of the dismissal is measured, and the Court anchors the termination on loss of trust and confidence and willful disobedience under it.

Section 8, Rule XXIII, Book V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code provides:

Section 8. Preventive suspension. – The employer may place the worker concerned under preventive suspension if his continued employment poses a serious and imminent threat to the life or property of the employer or of his co-workers.

This is the provision the Court uses to uphold the thirty-day preventive suspension imposed on the petitioners pending investigation.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that there was just cause for termination. The taking of the bottle by Escueta without the knowledge and permission of Laguerta, and its delivery to Rosites, was admitted by both during the investigation. Their jobs did not include setting up or delivering bar amenities, and Rosites had no business being on the sixteenth floor. The bottle was recovered hidden behind pillow cases, which betrayed an intent to conceal. The Court found that the claim of a practical joke was belied by the co-employees who testified they heard no such joking instruction, and that mere allegations are not evidence. Violation of company policies without justifiable reason is tantamount to willful disobedience of the lawful orders of the employer, and the act of stealing or concealing company property constitutes breach of trust. The Court stressed that the petitioners occupied sensitive positions, having access to guest rooms, so that a great deal of trust was reposed in them.

On the second issue, the Court held that due process was satisfied. The petitioners were given ample opportunity to present their defense, submitting their answers to the show cause memorandum and participating in the investigation. The absence of counsel did not affect the regularity of the proceedings, because the requirement of due process is satisfied as long as a party is given a reasonable opportunity to explain his side.

On the third issue, the Court upheld the preventive suspension under the quoted Section 8, Rule XXIII, Book V.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that the National Labor Relations Commission did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion for reconsideration as filed out of time. While technical rules are not mandatory in labor disputes, the rule on liberal construction is not a license to disregard procedural rules, and rules concerning periods must be followed strictly. The Court also held that the factual findings of the National Labor Relations Commission, especially where it and the Labor Arbiter agree, are accorded great weight and respect, even finality, when supported by substantial evidence.

Doctrine

First, violation of company policies without justifiable reason is tantamount to willful disobedience of the lawful orders of the employer, and stealing or concealing company property is a breach of trust constituting a just cause for termination under Article 282 of the Labor Code. Second, the requirement of due process in administrative investigations is satisfied as long as the employee is given a reasonable opportunity to explain his side; the absence of counsel during the investigation does not violate due process. Third, an employer may place a worker under preventive suspension if continued employment poses a serious and imminent threat to the life or property of the employer or of his co-workers. Fourth, the rule of liberal construction of procedural rules in labor cases is not a license to disregard the rules, and periods must be followed strictly. Fifth, the factual findings of the National Labor Relations Commission, particularly when in agreement with the Labor Arbiter and supported by substantial evidence, are binding and conclusive on appeal.

Disposition

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for lack of merit, finding no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the National Labor Relations Commission, and thus sustained the dismissal of both employees.

Remember This

The line worth memorizing is that due process in labor investigations means a reasonable opportunity to explain one's side, not the assistance of counsel, and that violation of company policy without justifiable reason is willful disobedience. Examiners like to use this case on the just causes under Article 282, on the validity of preventive suspension, and on the strict observance of procedural periods even in labor proceedings.