View full case

NORMA MABEZA v. NLRC

FACTS:

Petitioner Norma Mabeza and her co-employees at Hotel Supreme were asked to sign an affidavit attesting to the hotel's compliance with labor standard provisions. Petitioner refused to swear to the veracity of the affidavit and was ordered to leave the hotel. She filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. Private respondent Peter Ng counterclaimed with the ground of loss of confidence.

In another case, the complainant was charged with qualified theft for allegedly stealing items from her employer. The complainant was also accused of abandoning her job when she failed to return to work on a certain date. The employer sought her termination based on serious misconduct and the labor arbiter ruled in favor of the employer. The NLRC affirmed the labor arbiter's decision. The complainant filed a special civil action for certiorari before the Court.

The complainant argued that the loss of confidence and abandonment were false causes, challenged the admissibility of evidence, and claimed unfair labor practices. The Court agreed, stating that the employer did not sufficiently prove just cause for dismissal. The complainant had attempted to file a leave of absence and her absence did not signify abandonment. Loss of confidence should not be used as a blanket pretext for termination. The Court concluded that the complainant's dismissal was not justified and she was entitled to reinstatement.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the petitioner's dismissal on the ground of abandonment and loss of confidence was justified.

  2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the payment of underpaid wages and other monetary benefits.

  3. Whether the dismissal of the petitioner constitutes unfair labor practice.

RULING:

  1. The dismissal of the petitioner was unjustified. The respondent failed to prove just cause for terminating the petitioner's services under Article 283 of the Labor Code. The allegations of abandonment and loss of confidence are not supported by sufficient evidence.

  2. The petitioner is entitled to the deficiency in her wages, service incentive leave pay, emergency cost of living allowance, night differential pay, and 13th month pay for certain periods as the private respondent failed to prove payment of these benefits.

  3. The dismissal of the petitioner constitutes unfair labor practice as the respondent exerted pressure and interference against the employee's right to institute concerted action for better employment terms.

PRINCIPLES:

  1. Burden of Proof in Termination Cases: In termination cases, the employer bears the burden of proof to show that the dismissal is for just cause.

  2. Requirements for Abandonment: For abandonment to be a valid cause for dismissal, there must be a) lack of intention to work, and b) overt acts signifying the intention not to work.

  3. Loss of Confidence: This just cause applies to employees occupying positions of trust and confidence or those who handle money or property regularly. It should not be used as a subterfuge for illegal dismissals.

  4. Unfair Labor Practice: Acts that exert pressure, restraint, interference, or coercion against employees' rights to better employment terms constitute unfair labor practice.

  5. Monetary Claims: The employer must prove that facilities (meals, lodging) are customarily furnished, voluntarily accepted in writing by the employee, and charged at fair and reasonable value.

  6. Procedural Due Process: The employer must furnish two written notices prior to termination: one stating the cause for dismissal and another informing the decision to terminate, giving the employee ample opportunity to defend themselves.

  7. Separation Pay and Backwages: In cases of unjustified dismissal, the employee is entitled to separation pay, full backwages, and other monetary benefits.