ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 166178.
DAYS HOTEL vs. WILLIAMS
THIRD DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this
Court dated
G.R. No. 166178 (Days Hotel Philippines, Inc., Omnisource Management, Inc. and Reynaldo Conception vs. Herbert Williams.)
Before us is this petition for review on certiorari assailing the August 31, 2004 decision [1] cralaw of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 73421, which reversed that of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and reinstated with modification the original decision of the labor arbiter in an action for illegal dismissal filed by respondent Herbert Williams against the herein petitioners.
Petitioner Days Hotel Philippines, Inc. (Days Hotel) is a domestic corporation engaged in hotel business while petitioner Omnisource Management, Inc. (Omnisource) operates Days Hotel's chain of hotels. Petitioner Reynaldo Concepcion (Concepcion) is the chairman of the board of directors of both corporations.
Record shows that respondent Herbert Williams (Williams) was
enticed by Concepcion
into joining Days Hotel as executive vice-president and chief operating
officer. Williams worked as such from
On
On
On
In defense, petitioners contended that Williams was validly dismissed on ground of loss of trust and confidence. They averred that contrary to company policy, Williams meddled in the negotiation process with a prospective client; that he uttered unsavory comments against Concepcion; and that during his stint with Days Hotel, he was not able to contribute any significant improvement in the operation of their hotels.
On
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered declaring respondent Days Hotel, Inc., Omnisource Management, Inc. and Reynaldo A. Concepcion guilty of illegal dismissal, and they are hereby ordered as follows:
1. To pay complainant backwagesreckoned from his dismissal up to the date of this decision in the amount of P2,033,000.00;
2. To pay complainant separation pay in an amount equivalent to one half month pay for every year of service reckoned from the time he was employed up to the time he will actually be paid his separation pay in accordance with the doctrine of imputed service, which was as of this date is in the amount of P100,000.00;
3. To pay money claims of complainant in the amount of P751,286.00;
4. To pay moral and exemplary damages in the amount of P500,000.00; and
5. To pay complainant attorney's fees in an amount equivalent to 10% of whatever he may receive by virtue of this decision.
SO ORDERED.
On petitioners' appeal, the NLRC, in a decision dated
WHEREFORE, all the foregoing duly considered, the decision appealed from is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and a new one entered DISMISSING the complaint for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
The NLRC took Williams' non-denial of the accusations against him as an implied admission thereof. It ratiocinated:
To begin with, there has been no denial emanating from the complainant as to the utterances made by him to third persons concerning the management style, i.e. work habits or decision-making processes of Mr. Reynaldo Concepcion. All that is heard from him is that his statements were without malice and taken out of context.
xxx��� xxx������ xxx
Thus, with the bare answer of the complainant to the charges, there was no need to secure and present the affidavits of either Mr. Concepcion or Mr. Matthew Reeves, the latter being the person whom the complainant dissuaded from joining the companies headed by Mr. Concepcion.
xxx��� xxx������ xxx
xxx. We can conceive of no justifiable reason why the complainant should utter the remarks attributed to him to Ms. Cristy Bollos, President of Maria Plaza Suites and with whom the respondents were negotiating. By his actuation, complainant has recklessly placed in disrepute the character and person of Mr. Reynaldo Concepcion. xxx. By making known to other persons his misgivings about his immediate superior, complainant has acted in a manner contrary to and inimical to the best interests of the hotel. Hence, it is Our view that the respondents were justified in discontinuing the services of the complainant. [4] cralaw
Williams moved for a reconsideration but the NLRC denied his
motion in a resolution of
Aggrieved, Williams elevated the case to the Court of Appeals via petition for certiorari. There, Williams argued that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion when it reversed the Labor Arbiter's decision on the ground that NLRC perceived his failure to deny the charges against him as an implied admission, sufficient to cause his dismissal for loss of trust and confidence.
In the herein assailed decision
[5]
cralaw
dated
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed Decision and Resolution of the NLRC are ANNULED. The Labor Arbiter's Decision is hereby REINSTATED with MODIFICATION as follows:
a)�������� The award of back wages
in the amount of P2,033,000.00 is DELETED
and in lieu thereof, petitioner
should be paid his unpaid salary in the amount of P50,000.00;
b) ������� The
separation/termination pay payable to petitioner shall be in the fixed amount
of P100,000.00 pursuant to the employment contract;
c) ������� The monetary value of petitioner's vacation, sick and rest/recreation leave benefits embedded in his money claims is DELETED.
All other orders of the Labor Arbiter stand.
SO ORDERED.
With the appellate court having denied their motion for
reconsideration in its resolution of
The petition is unavailing.
The appellate court observed that petitioners failed to substantiate the charge of loss of confidence against respondent to warrant the latter's dismissal. It afforded greater weight on the observations and conclusion of the Labor Arbiter, viz:
"The records show that respondents invoke two reasons to
justify complainant's dismissal. These reasons are spelled out in the show
cause letter of
"There is also no proof that Ms. Bollos sent respondents a written communication denouncing complainant for the utterances attributed to him. Could it be that statements imputed to complainant reached respondent Concepcion's ears in the course of a conversation between him and Ms. Bollos? If it is so, then why did respondent Concepcion not execute an affidavit to recount the details of the conversation which he shared with Ms. Bollos? His affidavit which could have laid the basis upon which respondent's theory of loss trust and confidence could have been anchored.
"Respondent Concepcion's affidavit could have likewise enlightened this office on how the complainant allegedly dissuaded one Mr. Matthew Reeves from pursuing a career with respondent company by peddling lies about it. It is patent from the records of this case that respondent Concepcion did not at all execute an affidavit. Why did he not do so? The answer we will never know because it cannot be found in the records of this case. It is highly noticeable that Mr. Matthew Reeves did not also execute an affidavit to validate or confirm the verity of the charge against complainant. All these things taken collectively gave rise to the conclusion that the charges against the complainant no matter how serious they may appear to be have not been proven with clear and convincing proof that a reasonable mind would accept. Complainant for his part tackled the issues raised against him point by point and in so doing persuasively showed that there is no reason to sever his employment in the guise of loss of confidence".
We agree with the above finding.
It bears stressing that while an employer has its own interest to protect, and pursuant thereto, it may terminate a managerial employee, such prerogative to dismiss or lay off an employee must be exercised without abuse of discretion. Its implementation should be tempered with compassion and understanding. The employer should bear in mind that in the exercise of its dismissal prerogative, what is at stake is not only the employee's position but his livelihood. The fact that one is a managerial employee does not, by itself, exclude him from the protection of the constitutional guarantee of security of tenure. [7] cralaw
Loss of trust and confidence to be a valid cause for dismissal must be based on a willful breach of trust and founded on clearly established facts. To justify dismissal for loss of confidence, there should naturally be some basis for it, and although proof beyond reasonable doubt is not necessary, still the basis for the dismissal must be clearly and convincingly established. [8] cralaw
Loss of confidence must not be indiscriminately used as a shield by the employer against a claim that the dismissal is arbitrary. To be a valid ground for dismissal, loss of trust and confidence must be based on a willful breach of trust and founded on clearly established facts. While an employee's dishonesty or disloyalty is not to be condoned, neither should a condemnation on that ground be tolerated if based on suspicions spawned by speculative inferences. [9] cralaw Unsubstantiated suspicions, accusations and conclusions of an employer do not provide legal justifications for dismissing an employee. [10] cralaw
As correctly ruled by the appellate court, respondent Williams is
entitled only to an amount corresponding to his unpaid earned salary in the
amount of P50.000 and separation/termination pay in the fixed amount of P100,000 pursuant to the parties' contract
of employment.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED DUE COURSE,
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Asst. Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Penned by Associate Justice Ruben T. Reyes and concurred in by Associate Justice Perlita J. Tria Tirona and Jose C. Reyes, Jr. of the Sixth Division.
[2] cralaw Rollo, pp. 116-134.
[3] cralaw Rollo, pp. 143-151.
[4] cralaw Rollo, pp. 143-152.
[5] cralaw Rollo, pp. 37-50.
[6] cralaw Rollo, pp. 53-54.
[7] cralaw Maglutac vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 78345, 189 SCRA 767 [1990]; Michael Lawrence vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 87421, 205 SCRA 737 [1992].
[8] cralaw Garcia vs. NLRC, 289 SCRA 36.
[9] cralaw San Miguel Corporation vs. NLRC, 180 SCRA 281 [1989].
[10] cralaw Mendoza vs. NLRC, 310 SCRA 846 [1992].
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
