G.R. No. 103215 November 6, 1992
MARANAW HOTELS AND RESORTS CORPORATION (CENTURY PARK SHERATON MANILA), petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. SANTIAGO O. TAÑADA (Voluntary Arbitrator) and GREGORIO GALE, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Gregorio Gale, a roomboy at the Century Park Sheraton Manila owned by petitioner Maranaw Hotels and Resorts Corporation, was dismissed for “discourtesy and use of disrespectful and impolite language against a superior which constitutes gross misconduct.” The offensive remarks were uttered against his supervisors in their absence but were promptly reported to them. Gale filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. Conformably with their collective bargaining agreement, the case was submitted to Voluntary Arbitrator Santiago O. Tañada. The Voluntary Arbitrator found that Gale’s act constituted discourtesy and use of disrespectful language under the company rules, which carried a penalty of a 7-day suspension for a first offense. The Arbitrator held that dismissal was too harsh, ordered Gale’s suspension for seven days, and directed his immediate reinstatement with the right to collect his share in the service charge if he had been out of work for more than that period. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied. Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which dismissed it for lack of merit. Petitioner then elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not imposing the penalty of dismissal upon private respondent Gregorio Gale and in allowing him to collect his share in the service charge.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, with modification regarding the issue of double compensation. The petition was dismissed for lack of merit. The Court held that the conclusions of a voluntary arbitrator, when sufficiently corroborated by evidence, should be respected. The exceptions to the finality of a voluntary arbitrator’s decision (want of jurisdiction, grave abuse of discretion, violation of due process, denial of substantial justice, or erroneous interpretation of the law) were not present. The penalty of dismissal was too harsh and disproportionate to the infraction of uttering disrespectful language, which was a first offense. The doctrine of “strained relations” could not be applied indiscriminately; Gale, as a roomboy, did not occupy a sensitive position requiring complete trust and confidence where personal ill will would preclude reinstatement. The Court also affirmed that Gale was entitled to his share in the service charge collected during the period of his illegal dismissal, as supported by the collective bargaining agreement. However, the Court addressed petitioner’s unrefuted allegation that Gale continued to receive his monthly salary from the hotel after his dismissal (due to an agreement to avert a strike) while also receiving remuneration from the Armed Forces of the Philippines, which he joined after his separation. The Court held that Gale should not be allowed to unjustly enrich himself through double compensation. Applying the principle against unjust enrichment, the Court ruled that any earnings from other employment during the period of illegal dismissal should be deducted from the back wages or benefits due. If Gale had already received more than what he was entitled to, he should reimburse the excess to petitioner.