View full case

MANILA PAVILION HOTEL v. HENRY DELADA

FACTS:

The Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by Manila Pavilion Hotel (MPH) challenges the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) in a case filed by respondent Henry Delada. Delada, who was the Union President of the Manila Pavilion Supervisors Association at MPH, refused to accept his reassignment from Head Waiter of Rotisserie to Head Waiter of Seasons Coffee Shop. He requested a grievance meeting under their Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), but MPH instructed him to report to his new assignment while the grievance procedure was ongoing.

Delada did not comply with the transfer and instead continued reporting to his previous assignment, prompting MPH to send him memoranda and initiate administrative proceedings against him. As the parties failed to resolve their dispute during the grievance meeting, Delada filed a Complaint before the National Conciliation and Mediation Board and the issues were subsequently submitted for voluntary arbitration. The matters in question included the validity of Delada's transfer and his preventive suspension.

While the Complaint was pending before the Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators (PVA), MPH proceeded with the disciplinary action against Delada. The PVA subsequently issued a Decision, which upheld the validity of the transfer and declared that there was no legal basis for the preventive suspension. Furthermore, the PVA ruled that MPH had lost its authority to continue with the disciplinary action.

The CA affirmed the Decision of the PVA, leading MPH to file an appeal. The issue raised in the appeal was whether MPH retained the authority to continue with the administrative case against Delada.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether MPH retained the authority to continue with the administrative case against Delada for insubordination and willful disobedience of the transfer order.

  2. Whether MPH is liable to pay back wages.

RULING:

  1. MPH did not lose its authority to discipline Delada for his continued refusal to report to his new assignment. The PVA, despite ruling on the validity of the transfer order, did not make a definitive ruling on the merits of the validity of the 90-day suspension.

  2. Consequently, MPH is not liable to pay back wages and other benefits for the period corresponding to the penalty of 90-day suspension.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The voluntary arbitrator has the authority to interpret the agreement to arbitrate and determine the scope of their own authority, subject only to the certiorari jurisdiction of the Court.

  • When issues are brought to arbitration, and the specifics are not expressly limited, the arbitrator can assume jurisdiction over related issues.

  • There is a presumption of the validity of an employer's order until it is declared illegal or improper by a competent authority.

  • Employees are expected to comply with lawful orders while awaiting results from grievance machinery or arbitration proceedings.