Philippine Hoteliers, Inc. v. Joven

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 195479. February 4, 2019.]

PHILIPPINE HOTELIERS, INC., or DUSIT HOTEL NIKKO, petitioner, vs.JAIME JOVEN, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedFebruary 4, 2019which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 195479 (PHILIPPINE HOTELIERS, INC., or DUSIT HOTEL NIKKO, Petitioner, v. JAIME JOVEN, Respondent.) — The petitioner Philippine Hoteliers, Inc. 1 assails the November 12, 2010 decision 2 and the February 7, 2011 3 resolution whereby the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed and set aside the decision promulgated on July 18, 2007 4 by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and declared the respondent to have been illegally dismissed.

Antecedents

The CA summarized the pertinent facts as follows:

Petitioner Jaime Joven was employed by private respondent as a busboy on probationary status sometime in 1988. On April 30, 1989, petitioner joined the NUWHRAIN-Dusit Hotel Nikko Chapter (Union) and attended its general union membership meetings. In 1994, he was appointed bartender and finally on March 26, 2001, petitioner was promoted to captain waiter.

Sometime in 2002, the Union created an Ad Hoc Committee, with petitioner as one of its members, to temporarily assume its leadership because of the vacuum created by the dismissal of union officers who staged an illegal strike. Private respondent refused to recognize the Ad Hoc Committee. Instead, it recognized another group called the Caretaker committee.

On February 7, 2003, petitioner received a Memorandum, the relevant portion of which reads:

"On February 6, 2003, you were reported to be giving out an open letter to your co-employees which calls for them to keep on fighting management. The letter also outrightly tags Management as Liar.

Please explain within 48 hours of receipt of this memorandum why no disciplinary action must be taken against you for such.

Failure on your part to submit your explanation as required shall be taken to mean that you are waiving your rights to be heard and you are leaving it to Management to dispose of your case as it deems fit."

The above-mentioned open letter was an offshoot of the deadlocked negotiations for renewal of the collective bargaining agreement between private respondent and the Union, as well as other incidents related to the illegal strike. The relevant portion of petitioner's open letter reads: CAIHTE

"Punung puno ng kasinungalingan at inconsistencies ang mga ginagawa ng hotel management mga kasama at hindi tayo bulag bingi at tanga para di natin masuri ito.

Kitang kita na di rin sila sigurado na hanggang dulo ay kaya nilang ipanalo ang kanilang mga posisyun. Halatang halata ang kanilang taktika, na dinadaan lamang tayo sa inis at pang iinip sa pag aakalang mainis at mainip ang mga manggagawang lumalaban at mag sipag resign na lamang.

Hindi natin ito mapapayagan mga kasama, alam naming sa kabila ng kaliwat kanang pananakot at panggigipit sa mga kasaping nasa loob at labas ng kumpaya (sic) ay patuloy parin ang ating pagkakaisa at paninindigan, patuloy parin ang ating pag susulong sa katotohanan dahil sa dulo ito lamang ang natitira nating sandigan."

Petitioner submitted his written explanation, dated February 14, 2003, denying the allegations against him and claiming that he had never seen the above-mentioned open letter prior to his receipt of the memorandum.

Private respondent then sent a memorandum, dated March 1, 2003, notifying petitioner of the administrative hearing of the charges levelled against him scheduled on March 5, 2003.

After the hearing, private respondent's Human Resources Division issued another memorandum, dated March 6, 2003, notifying petitioner of its findings and terminating him from service.

Consequently, petitioner filed a Complaint, dated April 30, 2003, before the NLRC, for illegal dismissal, unfair labor practice and claims for unpaid wages and benefits.

After submission of the parties' respective position papers, the Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision, dated January 30, 2004, the dispositive portion of which reads:

"WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of complainant as follows:

1. Declaring complainant's dismissal to be unjust and illegal for having been effected without observance of due process;

2. Declaring respondents guilty of unfair labor practice in dismissing complainant on account of his union activities under Article 248 (a) of the Labor Code, as amended;

3. Ordering respondents to reinstate complainant to his former position without loss of seniority rights and other privileges, with full backwages inclusive of service charges, and all benefits from March 6, 2002 up to the actual reinstatement computed as follows:

 

a) Backwages
Basic salary
3/6/03-11/15/03 P12,032 x 8.30	P99,865.60
13th month pay P99,865.60/12	8,322.13
SILP
P12,032/26 = 462/77
462/77 x 5/12 x 8.30	1,600.41
	––––––––––
		P109,788.14
b) Four (4) days Sick Leave (given)		2,000.00
c) Six (6) days Paternity Leave (given)		3,000.00
d) Salary Differentials:
12/11/02-11/15/03
P1,050 x 10/97		11,518.50
e) Unpaid Salary (given)		6,000.00
f) Service charge (no basis)
g) Moral Damages		100,000.00
h) Exemplary damages		50,000.00
		––––––––––
		P282,306.64
i) 10% Attorney's fees		28,230.66
		––––––––––
TOTAL AWARD		310,537.30

 

SO ORDERED."

Aggrieved, private respondent appealed the above-quoted Decision to the NLRC. In a Decision, dated July 16, 2007, the NLRC modified the Labor Arbiter's Decision, ruling that while petitioner was illegally dismissed, private respondent did not commit any act which constitutes unfair labor practice, thus:

PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Decision of January 30, 2004 is hereby MODIFIED by deleting the awards representing moral and exemplary damages.

SO ORDERED.

Resultantly, petitioner moved for partial reconsideration of the NLRC Decision which was denied in its Resolution, dated August 31, 2007, as follows:

ACCORDINGLY, the instant Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.

No further Motions for Reconsideration shall be entertained.

SO ORDERED.5

The CA Decision

On November 12, 2010 the CA reversed the NLRC in the now assailed decision 6 disposing in this wise:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Petition for Certiorari is GRANTED. The Decision dated July 18, 2007 issued by respondent National Labor Relations Commission, in NLRC NCR CA No. 039270-04 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Decision of the Labor Arbiter, dated January 30, 2004, is REINSTATED.

SO ORDERED. 7

The CA held that the Labor Arbiter's findings of unfair labor practice was duly established and supported by the evidence on record. 8 aDSIHc

Issue

The petitioner framed the purported errors committed by the CA as follows:

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN REVERSING THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION'S DECISION AND ADOPTING INSTEAD THE LABOR ARBITER'S RULING THAT THE DISMISSAL OF PRIVATE RESPONDENT WAS MOTIVATED BY AN ALLEGED YET UNSUBSTANTIATED ANTI-UNION SENTIMENT AND THUS DECLARING PETITIONER GUILTY FOR AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE UNDER ARTICLE 248 PARAGRAPH "A" OF THE LABOR CODE.

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION WHEN IT FAILED TO CONSIDER THE SUPERVENING EVENTS WHICH RENDER THE INSTANT CASE MOOT AND ACADEMIC.

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN HOLDING PETITIONER LIABLE FOR DAMAGES.9

Did the CA err in holding that the petitioners had committed unfair labor practice (ULP) in terminating the respondent?

Our Ruling

The petition lacks merit.

The Court is left with the issue on whether the act of termination by the petitioners constituted ULP in view of the unanimous findings of the CA, the NLRC, and the Labor Arbiter that the respondent had been illegally dismissed for allegedly distributing an open letter to his co-employees. Generally, we do not delve into the matter, posing as it does, a factual issue. But with the conflicting findings of fact by the CA and the NLRC, a re-examination of the facts is therefore in order.

Acts constituting ULP refer to those that infringe the workers' right to organize 10 as provided under Article 258 11 of the Labor Code:

ARTICLE 258. Concept of Unfair Labor Practice and Procedure for Prosecution Thereof. — Unfair labor practices violate the constitutional right of workers and employees to self-organization, are inimical to the legitimate interests of both labor and management, including their right to bargain collectively and otherwise deal with each other in an atmosphere of freedom and mutual respect, disrupt industrial peace and hinder the promotion of healthy and stable labor-management relations.

Consequently, unfair labor practices are not only violations of the civil rights of both labor and management but are also criminal offenses against the State which shall be subject to prosecution and punishment as herein provided. x x x 12

Article 260 13 of the Labor Code enumerate the acts constituting ULP when committed by the employer, viz.: ETHIDa

ARTICLE 260. Unfair Labor Practices of Employers. — It shall be unlawful for an employer to commit any of the following unfair labor practices:

(a) To restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization. However, a labor organization shall have the right to prescribe its own rules with respect to the acquisition or retention of membership;

xxx xxx xxx

It is settled rule that the party who alleges any of the foregoing acts of ULP has the burden of proving the same with substantial evidence, as we have explained in Bankard, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission First Division:

The Court has ruled that the prohibited acts considered as ULP relate to the workers' right to self-organization and to the observance of a CBA. It refers to "acts that violate the workers' right to organize." Without that element, the acts, even if unfair, are not ULP. Thus, an employer may only be held liable for unfair labor practice if it can be shown that his acts affect in whatever manner the right of his employees to self-organize.

xxx xxx xxx

The general principle is that the one who makes an allegation has the burden of proving it. While there are exceptions to this general rule, in ULP cases, the alleging party has the burden of proving the ULP; and in order to show that the employer committed ULP under the Labor Code, substantial evidence is required to support the claim. Such principle finds justification in the fact that ULP is punishable with both civil and/or criminal sanctions. 14

In here, the NLRC erroneously pronounced that the quantum of evidence required to prove ULP is proof beyond reasonable doubt. 15 Upon review, the CA aptly rectified this error in its assailed decision, viz.:

x x x Evidently, the NLRC erred in its interpretation of the ruling in Magnolia Corporation vs. NLRC. There, the Supreme Court did emphasize the gravity of an accusation of unfair labor practice. However, it did not declare or even imply that proof beyond reasonable doubt, which is required to establish guilt in a criminal case, is likewise the standard of evidence required in an administrative proceeding to establish said accusation. Invariably, substantial evidence is still the quantum of evidence required to establish a fact in unfair labor cases brought before the NLRC. 16

Indeed, both the CA and the Labor Arbiter correctly applied substantial evidence or that amount of evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, 17 as the proper quantum of evidence to establish ULP.

Applying the foregoing and upon review of the records herein, we agree with the factual findings of the CA and the Labor Arbiter.

Established in the proceedings below that the respondent was a member of the ad hoc committee which assumed leadership of the union. On the other hand, the petitioners had dismissed him on what was perceived as illegal union activities on the respondent's part when he distributed an open letter to his co-workers, and which had nothing to do with his duties as captain waiter. 18 The distribution of letters, regardless of the acrimonious sentiments contained therein against the company, is insufficient to support the respondent's dismissal based on serious misconduct. We deem that the petitioner's act of terminating the respondent arose from an anti-union animus to oust an undesirable employee. Hence, we agree with the CA as it quoted with approval the following pronouncement of the Labor Arbiter:

In the instant case, complainant's act of giving a copy of the open letter to Erive could not by any stretch of one's imagination be equated with serious misconduct. Moreover, complainant's act was not in any way related to his duties as captain waiter. It was however related to his duties as member of the Union Ad Hoc Committee. 19 cSEDTC

WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition for review for lack of merit; AFFIRMS the decision promulgated on November 12, 2010 and the subsequent resolution rendered on February 7, 2011 by the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. SP No. 101253; and ORDERS the petitioners to pay the costs of suit.

SO ORDERED." Del Castillo, J., official on leave; Jardeleza, J., designated as Acting Working Chairperson of the First Division per Special Order No. 2636 dated January 31, 2019.

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, p. 3, also referred to as Dusit Hotel Nikko.

2.Id. at 35-50; penned by Associate Justice Antonio L. Villamor with Associate Justice Jose C. Reyes, Jr. (now a member of this Court) and Associate Justice Jane Aurora C. Lantion concurring.

3.Id. at 52-53.

4.Id. at 297-310; penned by Commissioner Lourdes C. Javier with Commissioner Gregorio O. Bilog III concurring, Commissioner Tito F. Genilo took no part.

5.Id. at 36-41.

6.Id. at 35-50.

7.Id. at 48-49.

8.Id. at 47.

9.Id. at 7.

10. Zambrano v. Philippine Carpet Manufacturing Corp., G.R. No. 224099, June 21, 2017, 828 SCRA 144, 161.

11. Formerly Art. 247.

12. Art. 258, Labor Code of the Philippines, Presidential Decree No. 442 (Amended & Renumbered), July 21, 2015.

13. Formerly Art. 249.

14. G.R. No. 171664, March 6, 2013, 692 SCRA 459, 468-469.

15. Rollo, pp. 389-390.

16. Id. at 43.

17. Zambrano v. Philippine Carpet Manufacturing Corp., G.R. No. 224099, June 21, 2017, 828 SCRA 144, 161.

18. Rollo, p. 45.

19. Id. at 46.