NORMAMABEZAvs.

NATI
ONALLABORRELATIONSCOMMI SSI
ON,
PETERNG/
HOTELSUPREME
G.
R.No.118506,
Apri
l18,
1997

FACTS:

I
n1991,peti
ti
onerNor
maMabeza( Mabeza)andherco-empl oy
eesattheHot
elSupr
emeinBaguioCi
ty
wereaskedbythehotel
'
smanagementt osignani nstrumentatt
est
ingtot
helat
ter
'scompl
iancewi
th
mini
mum wageandotherlaborst
andar
dprovi
sionsoflaw.

Thesubjectaffi
davi
twasdrawnbymanagementforthesol
epurposeofr
efut
ingt
headv
ersef
indi
ngsof
theLaborInspect
orofDOLEaft
erani
nspect
ionoftheest
abl
ishment.

Mabezasi
gnedtheaff
idavi
tbutref
usedtogototheCi
tyProsecut
or'sOff
icetosweartothev
eraci
tyand
cont
ent
softheaffi
davi
tasinstr
uctedbymanagement
.Neverthel
ess,t
heaf f
idav
itwassubmit
tedonthe
samedaytotheRegi
onalOff
iceoftheDOLEi
nBaguioCit
y.

Ont hesameday ,peti

ti
onerwasor der
edbyt hehotelmanagementtoturnov erthekeystoherli
ving
quarter
sandt oremov eherbelongingsf r
om thehotelpremi
ses.Therespondentstrongl
ychi
dedherfor
ref
usingtoproceedt otheCit
yPr osecutor'
sOfficet
oat t
estt
otheaff
idavi
tsoshet hereaf
terf
il
edaleave
ofabsencefr
om herj ob.However,itwasdeniedbythemanagement .

Whensheat t
emptedtoreturntowor konMay10,1991,t hehot el
'scashieri
nformedherthatsheshoul
d
notrepor
ttowor kand,instead,continuewit
hherunoffi
cialleaveofabsence.Consequently
,thr
eedays
aft
erherattempttoret
urnt owor k,peti
ti
onerfi
ledacomplaintforil
legaldi
smissalbef
oretheArbi
tr
ati
on
BranchoftheNLRC—CARBagui oCi t
y.

Inresponse,pri
vaterespondentPeterNg( Ng)al
legedt hatMabezal eftherjobwit
houtnoticeandthat
sheactuall
yabandonedherwor k.Futher,i
nasuppl ementalanswersubmi tt
edelevenmont hsaft
erthe
complaintforill
egaldismissalwasf i
led,Ng r
aised anew gr ound,lossofconf i
dence,which was
support
edbyacr i
minalcomplai
ntforQual i
fi
edThefthef i
ledbeforetheprosecut
or'
soffi
ceoft heCi
tyof
Baguioagainstpeti
ti
oneronJuly4,1991.

TheLaborAr
bit
erdi
smi
ssedpet
it
ioner
'scompl
aintont
hegr
oundofl
ossofconf
idence.

Her
einr
espondentNLRCaf
fi
rmedt
heLaborAr
bit
er'
sdeci
sion.

I
SSUES:

1.WONpet
it
ionerMabezaabandonedherj
obasal
legedbyher
einr
espondent

2.WONpet
it
ionerMabezawasv
ali
dlydi
smi
ssed

3.WONt
hedi
smi
ssalofpet
it
ionerMabezaconst
it
utedanunf
airl
aborpr
act
ice

4.WONt
her
ewasunder
pay
mentofwagesandbenef
it
s
RULI
NG:

1.NO.Theact
sofpet
it
ionerMabezami
li
tat
eagai
nsther
einr
espondent
'scl
aimt
hatsheabandoned
herj
ob.

Thecircumst
ancesuponwhichpri
vaterespondentanchoredhisclaimthatpeti
tioner"abandoned"
herjobwerenotenoughtoconst
it
utejustcausetosanctiontheterminat
ionofherser vicesunder
theLaborCode.Forabandonmenttoarise,ther
emustbeconcur renceoftwot hi
ngs:1)l ackof
i
ntenti
ontoworkand;2)thepr
esenceofov er
tactssigni
fyingtheemployee'
sintentionnottowor k.

Here,thef actt hatpeti

ti
onerMabezamadeanat temptt ofilealeaveofabsenceclear
lyindicat
es
notani ntenti
ont oabandonbutani nt
entiont or eturntowor kaf tert
heper i
odofherl eaveof
absence,hadi tbeengr anted.Likewise,whi leabsencef rom wor kforapr ol
ongedperiodmay
suggestabandonmenti ncer tai
ninstances,pet i
tionerMabeza' smer eabsenceofoneort woday s
doesnotsuf ficet osustaint heclai
m ofabandonment .Theov ertactorabsencecontempl at
ed
undert hel aw mustuner ringlypointtot hef actt hatt heempl oyeehasnoi nt
ent
iontoreturnto
work.Thi s,howev er
,cannotbegl eanedi nt hei nst antcase,hence,petit
ionerMabezacannotbe
sai
dt ohav eabandonedherj ob.

2.NO.Thedi
smi
ssalofpet
it
ionerMabezawasi
nval
idt
her
ebei
ngnoj
ustcause.

Lossofconf idenceasaj ustcausef ordismi ssalappl i

esonl ytocasesi nvol
vingempl oyees
occupyingposit
ionsoftr
ustandconfidenceort ot hosesi
tuationswher etheempl oyeeisrouti
nely
chargedwiththecareandcustodyoft heempl oy er'
smoneyorpr oper t
y.Tot hefi
rstclassbel
ong
manager i
alemployeesorthosevest
edwi t
ht hepower sorpr erogativestolaydownmanagement
poli
ciesandtot hesecondclassbelongcashi er s,audit
ors,pr opert
ycust odiansorthosewho,i n
thenormalandr outi
neexerci
seoftheirfunctions,r egul
arl
yhandl esignif
icantamountsofmoney
orpropert
y.

Hence,anor dinarychamber mai d,l

ikeherei
npet i
ti
onerMabeza,whohast osi gnoutforlinenand
otherhotelpropertyf rom t
hepr opertycustodianeachdayandwhohast oaccountf oreachand
everytowelorbedsheetut il
izedbyt hehotel'
sguest satt heendofhershi f twoul
dnotf allunder
anyoft hesetwocl assesofempl oyeesforwhi chlossofconf i
dencewoul dnor mal
lyapply.Shei s
notprivytoconfidentialmatters,whichareshar edonl
yi nthehigherechel
onsofmanagement ,nor
acust odianofasi gnifi
cantamountofmoneyorpr opertybelongi
ngt ot heemployer.Itist he
personsonsuchl ev elswho,becauset heydi scharget hesesensiti
veduties,maybeconsi dered
holdi
ngposi t
ionsoft rustandconf i
dence.

Accor
dingl
y,t
hedismissalofpet
it
ionerMabeza,bei
ngbasedonacausei
nappl
icabl
etoher
posi
ti
on,was,
ther
efor
e,inv
ali
d.
3.YES.Thedi
smi
ssalofpet
it
ionerMabezaconst
it
utedanunf
airl
aborpr
act
ice.

UnderArt
icl
e248( now259),interfer
ingwith,r
est
rai
ningorcoer
cingagai
nstt
heempl
oyees'
right
tosel
f-or
ganizat
ionisanunfairlaborpract
ice.

Her e,i
tisclearthatthefollowingactsofther espondental
togetherconst
itut
eunf airlaborpract
ice:
1)compel li
ngitsempl oyees,includi
ngpet i
ti
onerMabeza,t osignani nstrumenti ndicat
ingthat
theempl oyerobservedlaborst andar
dspr ovi
sionsoflawwhenhemi ghthav enot,and;2)t heact
oft er
mi natingorcoercingt hosewhor efuset ocooperatewiththeempl oyer'
sscheme.Theact s
clearl
y pr eemptst he rightoft he hot
el's workersto seek betterterms and condi t
ions of
empl oymentt hroughconcer tedacti
on.

4.YES.Thewagesandbenef
it
sofpet
ti
onerMabezawasunder
pai
d.

Respondentclai
medt hatt
hemonetarybenef
it
sr ecei
vedbypeti
ti
onerMabezabetween1981to
1987wer elesst hanmini
mum wagebecausepet i
ti
onerdidnotfact
orinthemeals,l
odging,
el
ectri
cconsumpt i
onandwatersher
eceiv
edduringtheperi
odinhercomput
ati
ons.

Howev er,i
tisaset t
ledrul
et hatf
acil
it
iescoul
dnotbededuct edwit
houttheemployercomplying
fi
rstwi t
h certainlegalrequirements.Fir
st,proofmustbe shown t hatsuch f aci
li
ti
es are
customar i
lyfurni
shed by the tr
ade.Second,t he pr
ovisi
on ofdeduct
ibl
ef aci
li
ti
es mustbe
volunt
aril
yacceptedi nwrit
ingbyt heempl oyee.Fi
nall
y,faci
li
ti
esmustbechar gedatf ai
rand
reasonableval
ue.

Theserequir
ementswer enotmeti nthei nst
antcase.Ther espondentfai
ledtopresentany
companypolicyorgui
deli
neexpressi
ngthatthemealsandlodgingarealr
eadypartoft
hesalary
.
Healsofail
edt oprov
ideproofoftheemployee'
swritt
enauthorizat
ionorconsent
,andtoshow
howhearri
vedatthev al
uat
ions.

Moresigni
fi
cant
ly,
theCourthel
dt hatt
hef oodandlodging,ortheel
ect
rici
tyandwaterconsumed
byt
hepet i
ti
onerMabezawerenotf aci
li
ti
esbutsupplement s.Abenefi
torprivi
legegr
antedtoan
employ
eefortheconveni
enceoftheempl oyeri
snotaf aci
li
ty.

Here,consider
ingthathotelworkersarerequi
redtowor kdif
fer
entshi
ft
sandar eexpectedtobe
availabl
eatvari
ousoddhour s,t
heirreadyavai
labi
li
tyisanecessar
ymat t
erintheoperat
ionsofa
hotel.Themeal s,lodgi
ng,electri
cconsumpt ion and wat
erconsumed bypet i
ti
onerMabeza,
therefor
e,weresupplements,
andshoul dnothavebeendeductedfr
om hersal
ary.

Thus,sheisenti
tledtothepaymentofthedef i
ciencyi nherwagesequivalenttothef ul
lwage
appl
icabl
efrom May13,1988upt othedat
eofheri l
legaldi
smissalaswellast hecorr
espondi
ng
paymentofservi
ceincent
ivel
eavepay,emergencycostofl i
vingall
owance,nightdif
fer
enti
alpay,
and13thmonthpayf ort
heperi
ods.

WHEREFORE,premi
sesconsi
der
ed,
theRESOLUTI
ONoftheNati
onalLaborRel
ati
onsCommi
ssi
on
dat
edApri
l24,1994i
sREVERSEDandSETASIDE,
wit
hcosts.