ChanRobles Virtual law Library
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 117059.
PIZZA HUT/PROGRESSIVE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, LABOR ARBITER SALIMATHAR NAMBI and FROILAN RUEDA, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
PUNO, J.:
Private respondent Froilan Rueda was employed as Assistant
Manager III at Pizza Hut in
On
"WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered ordering respondents PIZZA HUT/ PROGRESSIVE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION to pay the complainant the following:
1. Backwages for three (3) years, thus: P3,300.00 x 36 mos. = P118,800.00;
2. Separation pay at one (1) month salary for every year of service in the total amount of P24,75 0.00;
3. Ten percent (10%) of the total award for and as Attorneys fees."3cräläwvirtualibräry
This Decision was affirmed by the NLRC on
The present petition for certiorari seeks to nullify the aforementioned Decisions and Order rendered by the public respondents. It raises the following grounds:
"Public Respondent Labor Arbiter committed grave abuse of discretion which is tantamount to lack of jurisdiction in rendering the decision in favor of Private Respondent Rueda in spite of the overwhelming evidence against the latter. Respondent NLRC likewise committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in ordering the dismissal of the appeal and in denying the Motion for Reconsideration filed by your petitioner. The capricious and arbitrary rulings of Public Respondents without evidence in support thereof and even contrary to the evidence adduced during trial place the Petitioner in jeopardy and at the same time expose it to irreparable damage and injury."6cräläwvirtualibräry
The basic issue to be resolved in the case at bar is the legality of private respondents dismissal.
For an employees dismissal to be valid, two requisites must be met: (1) the employee must be afforded due process, meaning, he must be given an opportunity to be heard and to defend himself, and (2) the dismissal must be for a valid cause as indicated in Article 282 of the Labor Code.7cräläwvirtualibräry
First, on due process. Petitioner assails the ruling that private respondent was not afforded an opportunity to be heard before he was dismissed from work. The ruling of Labor Arbiter sustained by the respondent NLRC held:
" . . . Respondents contend that complainant was afforded due process as evidenced by the minutes of the investigation (Exhs. 4 to 4-c) wherein he was able to give his side on his defense. Complainant, however, denied that no such investigation was conducted by the respondents. An examination of the said minutes of investigation (Exhs. 4 to 4-c) reveals that the same was not signed by the complainant. Without complainants signature on the said minutes, it cannot be concluded that the same is authentic and (not) merely fabricated to suit respondents defense. Indeed, respondents failed to present any notice or letter to complainant affording him the opportunity to present evidence in refutation of the charge against him. This Office has no other option therefore, but to conclude that complainants right to due process was not duly observed by the respondents . . ."8cräläwvirtualibräry
The essence of due process in administrative proceedings is an opportunity to explain ones side or an opportunity to seek reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of.9 Before an employee can be dismissed, the Labor Code requires the employer to furnish the employee a written notice containing a statement of the causes for termination and to afford said employee ample opportunity to be heard and to defend himself with the assistance of his representative if he so desires. If the employer decides to terminate the services of the employee, the employer must notify the worker in writing of the decision to dismiss him, stating clearly the reasons there for 10cräläwvirtualibräry
The records show that petitioner satisfied the requirements of
due process before dismissing private Respondent. Contrary to the finding of
public respondents, petitioner required private respondent to submit his
written explanation regarding the charge of tip bussing. On
Next, we determine whether there was just cause for private respondents dismissal.
Petitioners evidence to prove tip bussing shows that on
On
Private respondent, on the other hand, maintains that there was no
valid cause for his dismissal. He explained that on
We affirm the Decision of the public respondents that petitioner has no valid cause to dismiss private Respondent.
The totality of petitioners evidence only proves that private
respondent failed to deposit the February 14 tips in the safety vault. The
omission, however, does not necessarily establish that private respondent stole
the money, as petitioner wants us to believe. In his letter17
to the petitioner dated
To: MDA
Fr: FBR
Re: Tips of Feb. 14 worth P705.
This letter is in response regarding the tips that I have kept temporarily which you questioned why its with me, it was last Feb. 14 days tips.
In the late evening (early morning) of Feb. 14 (Feb. 15), after
business operating hours, which is actually full at that time till 12:30 to 1:00
AM, after counting the tips I asked the duty cashier to change all loose coins
and bills to hundreds and place them (the loose bills) in the change fund. When
they were changed to hundreds, I temporarily placed them in my polo pocket and
continue doing our proper turn-over of the cashier for that days sales which
is P60,000 for regular dine-in and P13,000 for the RBD. I deposited the said
sales at about
At home, Ive noticed inside my pocket the tips for that day cause
I forgot to place it inside the safe so I just decided to give it to Leah Reyes
(a crew & tip custodian). The next day, supposedly my schedule was
I dont see any reason why some are questioning me regarding this matter, cause I just temporarily kept it and there was no manager assigned as tip custodian partner. It has been a practice systemwide that there should be one.
For your information.
(sgd) FROILAN B. RUEDA
There is no doubt that private respondent temporarily kept the money instead of putting it in the company safety vault. Given the circumstances of the case however, we cannot deduce dishonesty from the act and omission of private Respondent. It was Valentines Day, and like most restaurants, the Pizza Hut branch in Park Square was swarmed with customers. All the crew members, including private respondent, were very busy attending to their duties. It is not unusual therefore, for private respondent to forget to deposit the tips in the safety vault before going home. The omission could have been caused by oversight due to the hectic work activities on that day. Our norms of social justice demand that we credit employees with the presumption of good faith in the performance of their duties, especially private respondent who has served ptitioner for four and a half years without any tinge of dishonesty.
Moreover, the penalty of dismissal should not be imposed if it is too harsh and disproportionate to the offense committed by an employee. The following circumstances accentuate the harshness of private respondents dismisal: first, this is private respondents first offense after four and a half years of unblemished employment with petitioner; second, the amount which private respondent failed to deposit in the safety vault is only minimal; third, the money did not belong to the petitioner but to its employees who did not even complain about the incident and finally, nobody suffered any loss as private respondent eventually returned the money six (6) days later, in time for its distribution to the employees.
Petitioner charges private respondent with a very serious offense involving dishonesty. This can irreparably wreck his life as an employee for no employer will take to its bosom a dishonest employee. It behooved petitioner to prove its charge with clear and convincing evidence. Dismissal is the supreme penalty that can be meted to an employee and its imposition can not be justified where the evidence ambivalent.
Accordingly, we hold that public respondent NLRC did not err in awarding backwages and separation pay to private respondent, in view of its finding that private respondent was dismissed without a just cause. We, however, find the award of attorneys fees improper as it was not shown that petitioner acted in bad faith in terminating private respondents services.18 An honest misappreciation of the facts and the law on the part of the petitioner does not mean it acted with malice in dismissing private respondent, Indeed, it even gave private respondent full opportunity to defend himself before he was dismissed.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the assailed Decisions and Order rendered by public respondents are MODIFIED by deleting the award of attorneys fees to private Respondent. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Regalado (Chairman), Romero, and Mendoza, JJ., concur.
Endnotes:
1 Termination letter addressed to private respondent Froilan Rueda, Rollo, p. 96.
2 Rollo, pp. 41-50.
3 Rollo, p. 50.
4 Rollo, pp. 38-40.
5 Rollo, pp. 36-3 7.
6 Petition, Rollo, p. 13.
7 Mapalo vs. NLRC, 233 SCRA 266(1994).
8 RoIlo, pp. 48-49.
9 Philippine Phosphate Fertilizer Corp. vs. Torres, 231 SCRA 335(1994).
10 Article 277 (b), Labor Code; Sections 2, 5, and 6 of Rule XIV Book V, Implementing Rules and Regulation.
11 Annex "1" of petitioners Memorandum on Appeal, Rollo, p. 73.
12 Rollo, p. 85.
13 Rollo, p. 86
14 Rollo, p. 96.
15 Petition, Rollo, pp. 9-10.
16 Comment, Rollo, pp. 125-126.
17 Rollo, pp. 73-74.
18 De Ia Pena vs. Court of Appeals, 231 SCRA 456 (1994).