FIRST DIVISION
November 21, 2016
G.R. No. 197191
OASIS PARK HOTEL, Petitioner
vs.
LESLEE G. NAVALUNA, AMIE M. TUBELLEJA, JOAN REODIQUE, JOCELYN ORENCIADA, ELLAINE B. VILLAGOMEZ, OLIVIA E. AMASOLA and JONA MAE COSTELO, Respondents
D E C I S I O N
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:
In this Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, petitioner Oasis Park Hotel assails the Resolutions dated January 26, 20111 and June 6, 20112 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 117663 which, respectively, dismissed the Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court due to procedural infirmities and denied the Motion for Reconsideration of petitioner. The appellate court effectively affirmed the Decision3 dated August 31, 2010 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in NLRC LAC No. 11-003089-09 which (a) reversed the Decision4 of the Labor Arbiter (LA) in NLRC NCR Case Nos. 11-15936-08, 11-16353-08, and 01-01669-09, finding the dismissal of respondents Leslee G. Navaluna, Amie M. Tubelleja, Joan Reodique, Jocelyn Orenciada, Jona Mae Costelo, Olivia E. Amasola, and Ellaine B. Villagomez valid; (b) declared that respondents were illegally dismissed; and (c) ordered petitioner to immediately reinstate respondents to their former positions, pay respondents full backwages, wage differentials, and proportionate 13th month pay.
Respondents were variously employed by petitioner as food attendant, cashier, or front desk clerk since 2003 to 2004.
Respondents, believing that they were not being accorded the labor standard benefits for regular employees, filed on August 28, 2008 a complaint for violation of labor standard laws against petitioner and/or the spouses Jean and William Victor (also called Bill) Percy, President and Vice President, respectively, of petitioner, before the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), docketed as NCROO-MF0-0809-IS-004. Respondents, though, continued reporting for work, confident that they were merely exercising their constitutional rights.
On September 17, 2008, petitioner issued a similarly worded Notice to Explain and Preventive Suspension5 to each respondent. The Notice required respondents to submit within five days from notice their written explanation on why they should not be subject to disciplinary action or their services terminated for the following alleged offenses:
a. Serious Misconduct and Willful Breach of the trust reposed upon you by management, specifically when you, together with [names of the other co-respondents], conspired among yourselves to sabotage the operations of the hotel by committing the following acts:
1 By being moody and miserable in dealing with the hotel's customers;
2 By intentional "slowdown" in the performance of your duties;
b. Serious Misconduct, specifically by breeding contempt and fostering discontent among your co-workers through rumor mongering, discourtesy and crude attitude towards management.
The Notice also summoned respondents, assisted by their counsel, if they so desired, to attend the investigation/conference as regards their administrative cases on September 24, 2008 at the office of petitioner's counsel. Respondents' failure to submit their written explanation within the prescribed period or to attend the scheduled hearing would be deemed as a waiver of the same. The Notice further placed respondents on preventive suspension effective immediately and during the course of the investigation as their continued presence at the hotel "will pose a meaningful disruption in the productive operations."
Respondents individually submitted their written explanations to refute the charges against them,6 but did not attend the administrative hearing. On October 16, 2008, petitioner issued to each respondent a written Notice of Termination,7 ll identically stating that:
Based on your written explanation and your refusal and failure to attend the administrative hearing, you failed to present reasonable justification and sufficient evidence to counter the charges against you.
After a thorough and careful deliberation of the evidence presented and investigation, management hereby finds that there exists substantial evidence establishing that you had committed all the said offenses charged against you. The offenses that you had committed constitute serious misconduct, willful disobedience of lawful orders of management and willful breach of the trust reposed on you by management, which are just causes of termination of employment according to Article 282 of the Labor Code of the Philippines.
Considering the gravity of the offenses that you had committed, your failure to dutifully perform your functions, and your previous offenses against the company, your employment is hereby terminated effective immediately from the date of this Notice.
Consequently, respondents filed before the NLRC three separate complaints for illegal dismissal, underpayment of wages and labor standard benefits, damages, and attorney's fees, against petitioner and the spouses Percy, docketed as NLRC NCR Case Nos. 11-15936-08, 11-16353-08, and 01-01669-09.
In their Position Papers, respondents averred that the acts imputed against them by petitioner were not substantiated and did not constitute serious misconduct. Hence, there was no valid ground for their termination. Respondents asserted that they were dismissed as retaliation for their prior complaint against petitioner and the spouses Percy filed before the DOLE, i.e., NCROO-MFO-0809-IS-004. After receiving notice of NCROO-MFO-0809-IS-004, the spouses Percy verbally and emotionally maltreated respondents even more. Bill, in particular, became more vicious when he was drunk, throwing ice cubes and empty bottles, and uttering offensive remarks at respondents, such as "fuck you," "take off your pants," "do you want to have sex with a fat old guy," "you're fucking stupid," or "fucking idiot." During those moments, respondents would just reply to Bill "I love you, sir," to avoid further trouble. Subsequently, respondents were strictly prohibited from entering the main restaurant and transferred to the newly reopened sports bar, which was located at what used to be a stock area. Jean reportedly commented about respondents' transfer that, "mabuti yan, para lamukin sila."
Petitioner and the spouses Percy maintained that respondents were terminated for intentionally slowing down the performance of their duties; being rude, moody, and miserable towards the patrons of the hotel; and breeding contempt and fostering discontent among other employees, which amount to serious misconduct and wilful breach of trust punishable by termination. Petitioner and the spouses Percy also argued that they had fully complied with labor standard laws, and that respondents were dismissed only after compliance with the twin requirements of notice and hearing.
On September 10, 2009, the Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision favoring petitioner and the spouses Percy. According to the Labor Arbiter:
[Respondents'] acts, established by substantial evidence, notably, by the verified Position Paper and its Annexes, coupled with Affidavits of witnesses (Annexes A, B, and C of [petitioner and the spouses Percy's] Sur-Rejoinder) submitted by the [petitioner and the spouses Percy], constitute serious misconduct that justified the [petitioner] hotel into validly dismissing them from employment under Article 282 of the Labor Code. Maintaining them in its employ would further ruin the reputation of the hotel and ultimately destroy its business altogether.
As the [petitioner and the spouses Percy's] Position Paper validly argues: It is respectfully submitted that the acts of [respondents] fall within the purview of what is serious misconduct which is a just cause for termination under the Labor Code. [Respondents] were food attendants for [petitioner] Oasis Park Hotel ("Hotel" for brevity). As food attendants, their primary responsibility is to attend to the customers of the [petitioner] Hotel. As food attendants, they were supposed to show the [petitioner] hotel's customers that they were very much happy and willing to accommodate them. They were supposed to answer the legitimate needs of the [petitioner] hotel's customers. When they have shown their lack of interests in serving the [petitioner} hotel's customers, when they were intentionally slow in answering the orders of the said customers, when they worked very sluggish in the performance of their primary duties, these acts constitute dereliction of duty and, thus, qualify as a misconduct. Such acts of misconduct are of grave and aggravated character considering that to serve with gusto and eagerness the [petitioner] hotel's customers are their primary duty and the fact that these acts were done intentionally completely make it serious misconduct.
Indeed, with a mental make-up and disposition that would drive away our country's tourists, the [respondents] do not deserve a place in the hotel industry.8
The Labor Arbiter, while denying respondents' claims for overtime pay, night shift differential pay, premium pay for holiday and rest day work, and damages, granted respondents' claims for proportionate 13th month pay for October 2008 and wage differentials due to underpayment of wages.
The dispositive portion of the Labor Arbiter's Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby made dismissing as wanting in merit the charge of illegal dismissal but ordering the [petitioner] hotel to pay each [respondent] a proportionate 13th month pay for the year 2008.
The [petitioner] hotel is also ordered to pay each [respondent] wage differentials arising from underpayment of wages but subject to the usual three years prescriptive period on money claims.
Other claims are dismissed for lack of merit9.
Respondents filed an appeal before the NLRC, docketed as NLRC LAC No. 11-003089-09. In its Decision dated August 31, 2010, the NLRC found:
At the outset, it bears stressing the well-entrenched rule in dismissal cases that the onus of proving that the employee was not dismissed or if dismissed, that the dismissal was not illegal, rests on the employer and failure to discharge the same would mean that the dismissal is not justified and therefore illegal. Thus, the employer must not only rely on the weakness of the employees' evidence but must stand on the merits of their own defense. A party alleging a critical fact must support his allegation with substantial evidence for any decision based on unsubstantiated allegation cannot stand as it will offend due process. (Dina Abad et al., vs. Roselle Cinema Silverscreen Corp. and Vermy Trinidad, G.R. No. 141371, March 24, 2006)
In the case at bar, We find that [petitioner and the spouses Percy] failed to hurdle the aforesaid duties. By relying alone on the affidavits attached to Sur-Rejoinder, [petitioner and the spouses Percy], in effect, put the cart before the horse when they dismissed the [respondents] on account of the alleged offenses. In other words, [petitioner and the spouses Percy] failed to present substantial evidence to support their accusations against [respondents] at the time they were dismissed from employment. As correctly pointed out by the [respondents], the belated execution of the questioned affidavits a year after the alleged infractions only tend to show that their dismissals were not supported by any evidence, much less substantial evidence, since the likelihood being that they were non-existing evidence at the time of the alleged investigation conducted by [petitioner]. This likelihood was further bolstered by the fact that [petitioner and the spouses Percy] considered the belated submission of the said affidavits of witnesses in their Sur-Rejoinder as newly discovered evidence, an implied admission that they were non-existing evidence at the very time [petitioner and the spouses Percy] supposedly deliberated on the dismissal of the [respondents].
The same is true anent the Position Paper filed by [petitioner and the spouses Percy]. Contrary to the Labor Arbiter's finding, such can never partake of an evidence nor carries evidentiary weight, unless substantiated with the quantum of evidence required in this proceedings. For it is an elementary rule that mere allegations are not evidence.
Moreover, We note the' proximity of the complaint filed by [respondents] against the [petitioner] for violation of labor laws, in one hand, and the date [petitioner and the spouses Percy] subsequently effected their dismissals, on the other. The lapse of the short period of time between the two inextricably related incidents further lends strong credence upon the [respondents'] stance that their dismissal was in retaliation to their filing of said complaint.
The foregoing disquisitions are in accord with the settled rule in termination cases enunciated in Acebedo Optical vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 150171, July 17, 2007, thus:
Consequently, the termination of her employment wasillegal. "x x x.10"From the preceding discussion, the dearth of reliable evidence on record constitutes serious doubt as to the factual basis of the charge of violation of company policy filed against private respondent. This doubt shall be resolved in her favor in line with the policy under the Labor Code to afford protection to labor and construe doubts in favor of labor. The consistent rule is that if doubts exist between the evidence presented by the employer and the employee, the scales of justice must be tilted in favor of the latter. The employer must affirmatively show rationally adequate evidence that the dismissal was for a justifiable cause. Having failed to satisfy this burden of proof, we find that petitioners dismissed private respondent without just cause.