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.