Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 123880 February 23, 1999
MARANAW HOTES AN! RESORT CORPORAT"ON, #O$%er o& Ce%'ury Par(
S)era'o% Ma%*+a,, petitioner,
vs.
NAT"ONA A-OR REAT"ONS COMM"SS"ON a%. E!!"E !AMAER"O,
respondents.

PUR"S"MA, J.:
This special civil action for certiorari under Rule ! of the Revised Rules of "ourt see#s
to annul and set aside the Decision, dated Septe$ber %&, %''!, of the National (abor
Relations "o$$ission )N(R"*
1
, and the Order
2
, dated +anuar, -., %'', den,in/
petitioner0s $otion for reconsideration in N(R"1N"R1"2 No. ..!341'-, on the /round
of lac# or e5cess of 6urisdiction or /rave abuse of discretion.
On 2pril 4, %''4, 7ddie Da$alerio )Da$alerio*, a roo$ attendant of the "entur, Par#
Sheraton Hotel, operated b, Marana8 Hotel and Resort "orporation, 8as seen b, hotel
/uest +a$ie 9laser )9laser* 8ith left hand inside the latter0s suitcase. "onfronted 8ith
8hat he 8as doin/, Da$alerio e5plained that he 8as tr,in/ to tid, up the roo$. Not
satisfied 8ith the e5planation of Da$alerio, 9laser lod/ed a 8ritten co$plaint before
:illia$ D. Despui/, shift1in1char/e of securit, of the hotel. 9laser also reported that
Da$alerio had previousl, as#ed fro$ hi$ souvenirs, cassettes, and other /ivea8a,s.
The co$plaint 8as later brou/ht b, Despui/ to the attention of Ma6or 7ddie ;uluran,
chief of Securit, of the hotel.
On 2pril -, %''4, Da$alerio 8as /iven a Disciplinar, 2ction Notice )D2N*. The ne5t da,,
an ad$inistrative hearin/ 8as conducted on the $atter. 2$on/ those present at the
hearin/ 8ere< %* (ourdes Ricardo )roo$ attendant*, 4* 2n/elito Torres )floor supervisor*,
-* Ma6or 7ddie ;uluran )chief of securit,*, 3* Susan Dino )Personnel representative*, !*
2lfredo San 9abriel )senior floor supervisor* and * ;en Hur 2$ador )union
representative*.
Ta#in/ the 8itness stand on his o8n behalf, Da$alerio denied the accusation a/ainst
hi$, theori=in/ that 8hen he found the roo$ of 9laser in disarra,, and 8as about to
$a#e the bed, he noticed so$e belon/in/s, such as soc#s and T1shirts of the said hotel
/uest scattered around, so $uch so that he thou/ht of placin/ the so$e in his lu//a/e.
:hile doin/ so, 9laser arrived. :hen as#ed b, the latter if so$ethin/ 8as 8ron/, he
)Da$alerio* said >I0$ 6ust cleanin/ ,our roo$,> and 9laser re$ar#ed, >9ood 8or#,> and
then, the t8o of the$ chatted about 9laser0s concert at the 2raneta "oliseu$.
On 2pril %-, %''4, Da$alerio received a $e$orandu$
3
issued b, 2lfredo San 9abriel,
Sr., ?loor Supervisor, bearin/ the approval of Nicolas R. @irit, 75ecutive House#eeper,
statin/ that he )Da$alerio* 8as found to have co$$itted Aualified theft in violation of
House Rule No. %, Section - of Hotel Rules and Re/ulations. The sa$e $e$orandu$
served as a notice of ter$ination of his e$plo,$ent.
On Ma, %', %''4, Da$alerio filed 8ith the (abor 2rbiter a "o$plaint for ille/al dis$issal
a/ainst the petitioner.
On 2u/ust 4., %''-, after the parties had sent in their position papers, (abor 2rbiter
"eferina +. Diosana decided the caseB disposin/, thus<
:H7R7?OR7, 6ud/$ent is hereb, rendered findin/ the dis$issal of
co$plainant to be ille/al and orderin/ the respondents to reinstate
hi$ to his for$er or eAuivalent position 8ithout loss of seniorit, ri/hts
and 8ith bac#8a/es fro$ 2pril %!, %''4 8hen he 8as preventivel,
suspended up to actual reinstate$ent and other benefits, includin/
but not li$ited to his share in the char/es and or tips 8hich he failed
to receive, and all other ";2 benefits that have accrued since his
dis$issal.
SO ORD7R7D.
?ro$ the aforesaid (abor 2rbiter0s disposition, the petitioner appealed to the N(R",
8hich $odified the appealed decision b, /ivin/ petitioner the option of pa,in/
Da$alerio a separation pa, eAuivalent to one )%* $onth pa, for ever, ,ear of service,
instead of reinstatin/ hi$.
On Nove$ber 44, %''!, petitioner interposed a $otion for reconsideration but to no
avail. N(R" denied the sa$e on +anuar, -., %''.
Cndaunted, petitioner has co$e to this "ourt via the present petitionB posin/ the
Auestions<
1
%. :H7TH7R OR NOT R7SPOND7NT N(R" "OMMITT7D 9R2V7
2;CS7 O? DIS"R7TION 2MOCNTIN9 TO (2"@ O?
+CRISDI"TION IN HO(DIN9 TH2T P7TITION7R ?2I(7D TO
2DDC"7 "ON"(CSIV7 7VID7N"7 IN SCPPORT O? ITS
V7RSION O? TH7 IN"ID7NT, "ONSID7RIN9 TH7 ?2"T TH2T
TH7 7VID7N"7 ON R7"ORD IN7(C"T2;(D SHO:S TH2T
PRIV2T7 R7SPOND7NT :2S "2C9HT IN FLAGRANTE DELICTOB
and
4. :H7TH7R OR NOT R7SPOND7NT N(R" "OMMITT7D 9R2V7
2;CS7 O? DIS"R7TION 2MOCNTIN9 TO (2"@ O?
+CRISDI"TION IN NOT R7V7RSIN9 TH2T PORTION O? TH7
D7"ISION O? TH7 (2;OR 2R;IT7R ORD7RIN9 H7R7IN
P7TITION7R TO P2D PRIV2T7 R7SPOND7NT HIS SH2R7 IN TH7
S7RVI"7 "H2R97 :HI"H :2S "O((7"T7D DCRIN9 TH7 TIM7
H7 :2S NOT :OR@IN9 IN TH7 HOT7(.
The petition is barren of $erit.
Petitioner0s theor, that Da$alerio 8as cau/ht co$$ittin/ Aualified theft in flagrante
delicto is ane$ic of evidentiar, support. Records disclose petitioner0s failure to
substantiate such i$putation a/ainst hi$. Durin/ the investi/ation presided over b, the
(abor 2rbiter, Da$alerio narrated a plausible and satisfactor, e5planation for his
behavior co$plained of. 2ccordin/ to hi$, he 8as then cleanin/ the hotel roo$ of
9laser, and 8hile in the process of placin/ inside the lu//a/e the personal belon/in/s
of 9laser scattered near the bed, the latter entered the roo$. 9laser did not bother to
testif, as all his thin/s 8ere intact.
2lthou/h it 8as not co$pletel, proper for Da$alerio to be touchin/ the thin/s of a hotel
/uest 8hile cleanin/ the hotel roo$s, personal belon/in/s of hotel /uests bein/ off1
li$its to roo$bo,s, under the attendant facts and circu$stances, 8e believe that the
dis$issal of Da$alerio 8as un8arranted. To be sure, the investi/ation held b, the hotel
securit, people did not unearth enou/h evidence of culpabilit,. It bears repeatin/ that
sub6ect hotel /uest lost nothin/. 2lbeit petitioner $a, have reasons to doubt the honest,
and trust8orthiness of Da$alerio, as a result of 8hat happened, absent sufficient proof
of /uilt, he )Da$alerio*, 8ho is a ran#1and1file e$plo,ee, cannot be le/all, dis$issed.
/

Cnsubstantiated suspicions and baseless conclusions b, e$plo,ers are not le/al
6ustification for dis$issin/ e$plo,ees. The burden of provin/ the e5istence of a valid
and authori=ed cause of ter$ination is on the e$plo,er.
0
2n, doubt should be resolved
in favor of the e$plo,ee, in #eepin/ 8ith the principle of social 6ustice enshrined in the
"onstitution.
1
2ll thin/s studiedl, considered and vie8ed in proper perspective, the dis$issal of
Da$alerio, under the pre$ises, cannot be countenanced.
2s re/ards the share of Da$alerio in the service char/es collected durin/ the period of
his preventive suspension, the sa$e for$ part of his earnin/s, and his dis$issal havin/
been ad6ud/ed to be ille/al, he is entitled not onl, to full bac#8a/es but also to other
benefits, includin/ a 6ust share in the service char/es, to be co$puted fro$ the start of
his preventive suspension until his reinstate$ent.
Ho8ever, $indful of the ani$osit, and strained relations bet8een the parties,
e$anatin/ fro$ this liti/ation, 8e uphold the rulin/ a quo that in lieu of reinstate$ent,
separation pa, $a, be /iven to the private respondent, at the rate of one )%* $onth pa,
for ever, ,ear of service. Should petitioner opt in favor of separation pa,, the private
respondent shall no lon/er be entitled to share in the service char/es collected durin/
his preventive suspension.
:H7R7?OR7, the petition is hereb, DISMISS7D and the "ourt affir$s the Auestioned
Decision of the National (abor Relations "o$$ission, to be i$ple$ented accordin/ to
la8 and this disposition. No pronounce$ent as to costs.
SO ORD7R7D.
2