View full case

ROSARIO MANEJA v. NLRC

FACTS:

Rosario Maneja worked as a telephone operator at Manila Midtown Hotel and was a member of NUWHRAIN. On February 13, 1990, a page boy gave another operator, Rowena Loleng, a form and deposit for a long-distance call by a Japanese guest. The call was unanswered and the deposit was sent to the cashier. On February 15, Maneja noticed that the form was not time-stamped and changed the date to February 13. The second deposit was returned to the guest.

The chief telephone operator issued a memorandum to Maneja and Loleng to explain the incident. The chief recommended that their offenses fall under violations of the Offenses Subject to Disciplinary Actions. Maneja received a notice of dismissal but wrote "under protest."

Loleng and Maneja were charged with falsification and theft, but the recommendation for the estafa case was reversed. Maneja filed an illegal dismissal case against Manila Midtown Hotel. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Maneja, ordering her reinstatement and payment of backwages, damages, and attorney's fees.

Manila Midtown Hotel appealed to the NLRC, stating that the case should be subjected to voluntary arbitration. The petitioner argued that termination cases should be heard by a Labor Arbiter if they are not unresolved grievances. The petitioner pointed out a conflicting opinion from the Solicitor General.

The petitioner contended that the dismissal does not fall under the jurisdiction of the grievance machinery or voluntary arbitrator, as established to ensure the observance of a collective bargaining agreement.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the dismissal of the petitioner falls within the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter.

  2. Whether the private respondent is estopped from questioning the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter.

  3. Whether or not private respondent is in estoppel from questioning the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter before the respondent NLRC.

  4. Whether or not the petitioner was illegally dismissed.

  5. Whether there was just cause for the dismissal of the petitioner.

  6. Whether due process was properly observed in the dismissal of the petitioner.

  7. Whether or not there was a lack of due process in effecting the dismissal.

  8. Whether or not the termination of the services of the employee was attended by fraud or bad faith on the part of the employer.

  9. Whether or not the grant of moral and exemplary damages is justified.

  10. Whether or not the award of attorney's fees is justified.

RULING:

  1. The dismissal of the petitioner falls within the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter. It is considered a termination dispute and not a grievance arising from the interpretation or enforcement of company personnel policies.

  2. The private respondent is estopped from questioning the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter due to their active participation in the proceedings below.

  3. Yes, private respondent is estopped from questioning the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter before the respondent NLRC. The respondent NLRC erroneously interpreted the ruling in La Naval Drug Corporation vs. Court of Appeals. Under the said ruling, estoppel lies in this case. Private respondent actively participated in the proceedings before the Labor Arbiter and did not raise the issue of jurisdiction at any time before or during the trial on the merits. Private respondent only raised the issue of jurisdiction after taking the cue from the preliminary statement in the decision of the Labor Arbiter. It was then too late and estoppel had set in.

  4. The ruling of the Labor Arbiter that the petitioner was illegally dismissed is upheld. The requisites of a valid dismissal, as expressed in Article 282 of the Labor Code, were not met. The employee must be given an opportunity to be heard and to defend themselves. In this case, the dismissal of the petitioner was grounded on culparable carelessness, negligence, and failure to follow established procedures, as well as the forgery or falsification of official documents. However, the petitioner explained that she did not follow the procedures because they were not consistently followed by other operators and hotel employees, and the alteration of the date in the document was done to reflect the true date without malice. Therefore, there is no basis for personal appropriation by the petitioner, and the enforcement of company policies should not result in the harsh penalty of dismissal.

  5. No, there was no just cause for the dismissal of the petitioner. The court found that there was no evidence that the petitioner had unlawfully taken money and no evidence of intent to profit or misappropriation. The court also considered the petitioner's long period of service without any prior record of dishonesty.

  6. No, due process was not properly observed in the dismissal of the petitioner. Although a written explanation was submitted, no actual hearing was conducted before the petitioner's employment was terminated. The petitioner was not provided the opportunity to fully defend herself, thus violating her right to due process.

  7. Yes, the dismissal lacked due process.

  8. Yes, the termination of the employee's services was attended by fraud or bad faith on the part of the employer.

  9. Yes, the grant of moral and exemplary damages is justified.

  10. Yes, the award of attorney's fees is justified.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Disputes involving the interpretation, implementation, or enforcement of collective bargaining agreements and company personnel policies are within the jurisdiction of the grievance machinery and voluntary arbitrators.

  • Termination disputes fall under the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter, regardless of whether they involve the interpretation or enforcement of company personnel policies or not.

  • Estoppel applies when a party actively participates in proceedings and fails to object to the jurisdiction, thereby invoking and accepting the jurisdiction of the court or quasi-judicial body.

  • Estoppel applies when a party induces a court or body to adopt a particular theory or position and is then not allowed to assume an inconsistent position on appeal.

  • The jurisdiction of a court or body must exist as a matter of law and may not be conferred by the consent of the parties or by estoppel.

  • The requisites of a valid dismissal are the causes expressed in Article 282 of the Labor Code and the opportunity for the employee to be heard and defend themselves.

  • Strict compliance with substantive and procedural laws is required in dismissal cases because it affects not only the employee's position but also their livelihood.

  • Charges of culparable carelessness, negligence, or failure to follow instructions or established procedures must result in loss or damage to company property to merit dismissal.

  • Charges of falsification must be done in such a way as to mislead the user(s) of the document to merit dismissal.

  • Employees should be given the presumption of good faith in the performance of their duties.

  • Dismissal is the supreme penalty that can be meted to an employee and its imposition cannot be justified where the evidence is ambivalent.

  • An employer can terminate the services of an employee only for valid and just causes, and failure to do so results in a finding that the dismissal was unjustified.

  • The twin requirements of notice and hearing constitute the essential elements of due process in the dismissal of employees.

  • Every opportunity and assistance must be accorded to the employee by the management to enable them to adequately prepare for their defense, including legal representation.

  • An employee's employment is property in the constitutional sense and cannot be deprived without due process of law.

  • Backwages for an illegally dismissed employee should be computed from the time of dismissal until actual reinstatement, without deducting earnings from elsewhere.

  • Employees are entitled to the thirteenth-month pay benefit regardless of their designation and method of wage payment.

  • The award of moral and exemplary damages may be warranted in cases where there is lack of due process in effecting the dismissal.

  • Lack of due process in effecting dismissal warrants the finding of illegal dismissal.

  • Fraud or bad faith on the part of the employer in terminating an employee's services may warrant the award of moral and exemplary damages.

  • The anti-social and oppressive abuse of the employer's right to investigate and dismiss employees constitutes a violation of Article 1701 of the New Civil Code and Article 21 on human relations.

  • The grant of moral damages to employees can be sanctioned under Article 2219, No. 10 of the Civil Code in cases referred to in Article 21.

  • Attorney's fees may be awarded to the prevailing party in accordance with Article 111 of the Labor Code.