Post on 04-Nov-2015
description
Norma Mabeza vs. National Labor Relations Commission, Peter
Ng/Hotel Supreme
G.R. No. 118506
April 18, 1997
Case Report by Geline Joy D. Samillano, LLB-2B
Parties Involved
Norma Mabeza Petitioner of the case
She was one of the chambermaids employed at Hotel Supreme
Peter Ng Respondent of the case
Owner of Hotel Supreme and employer of Norma Mabeza
Facts of the Case An inspection by the Department of Labor and
Employment (DOLE) was conducted in the premises of Peter Ngs hotel. The result of which was unfavorable to the respondent.
By virtue of said inspection result, the respondent asked his employees to sign an instrument attesting to the latters compliance with the minimum wage law and the labor standards law.
Facts of the Case
Norma Mabeza was one of the employees who were made to sign the said instrument. But when asked to appear before the Prosecutors office and attest to the authenticity of the document she signed, she refused to do so.
As result of Mabezas refusal, her relationship with the management adversely changed which ultimately led to her dismissal from work.
Facts of the Case
Because of this, she filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and alleged underpayment of wages, non-payment of holiday pay and other benefits.
Aside from denying the allegations filed against them, the respondent submitted a supplemental answer 11 months thereafter where he raised a new ground, loss of confidence, coupled with a criminal complaint for Qualified Theft and Perjury.
Facts of the Case
Labor Arbiter:
Dismissed the complaint filed on the basis of the new ground, loss of confidence.
The charge of perjury against petitioner was dismissed.
NLRC:
Affirmed the Labor Arbiters decision
Issue Whether or not the dismissal by the private
respondent was illegal and constitutes unfair labor practice?
The court ruled in favor of Mabeza and ruled for her entitlement to the economic benefits sought.
Ruling
Ratio Decidendi
Insufficient proofs to prove the legality of the dismissal
The respondent was not able to present substantial evidence to justify Mabezas dismissal.
It was an error to contend that Mabeza abandoned her work based on the circumstances. Her leave of absence for two days cannot qualify as abandonment.
The justifications made as regards loss of confidence was only an afterthought.
Loss of Confidence
This ground for dismissal applies only to:
Managerial rank employees
Employees tasked with safekeeping of money or company trade secrets
In alleging this, it should be a genuine claim and not attended by bad faith nor should it be simulated.
Ratio Decidendi
The circumstances which led to the employees dismissal can be considered as unfair labor practice
In alleging unfair labor practice, the test is: whether or not the employer has exerted pressure in the form of restraint, interference, coercion, against his employees right to institute concerted action for better terms and conditions of employment.
Ratio Decidendi
Deductions in the form of facilities must conform with certain requirements set forth by the law Although permissible, facilities deducted on
employees wage should be proven: That it is customarily furnished and there are tangible
proofs to this
That the employee accepted the deductions in writing
That the deductions must be at a fair and reasonable value
Ratio Decidendi
An illegally dismissed employee is entitled to economic benefits There were evidences which points to an
employee being illegally dismissed. The only relief not granted in the case of Mabeza was her reinstatement to work.
The benefits granted to her are: separation pay, backwages, service incentive leave pay, night differential pay, 13th month pay, deficiency wages and the applicable ECOLA, and Php1,000.