G.R. No. 110776 May 26, 1995
MARANAW HOTEL & RESORT CORPORATION (CENTURY PARK SHERATON MANILA), petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND CIRO BETILA, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Ciro Betila worked as a room attendant for petitioner Century Park Sheraton Hotel from June 22, 1980. His dismissal stemmed from two separate incidents where Japanese hotel guests, Mr. Motomu Okumura on January 22, 1989, and Mr. Masatoshi Kusumoto on April 5, 1989, reported losing money from their rooms. Investigations by the Tourist Security Division of the Department of Tourism established that Betila was the sole room attendant who serviced both rooms on the respective dates of the losses. The investigation reports also noted a pattern, citing twelve prior unrecovered loss incidents in Betila’s assigned rooms from 1986 to 1988, often occurring before his scheduled day-off.
Betila was repeatedly invited to appear before the investigators to explain but failed to do so on both occasions. Subsequently, the hotel, via a letter dated May 5, 1989, formally notified him of the findings and required him to submit his explanation within forty-eight hours. Despite receipt, Betila remained silent and submitted no explanation. The hotel, after evaluation, dismissed him for loss of trust and confidence. Betila then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.

ISSUE

Whether the dismissal of Ciro Betila was for a just cause and effected with due process.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, finding the dismissal valid. On procedural due process, the Court held it was fully complied with. Betila was given multiple opportunities to be heard: he was invited twice by the Tourism investigators and was formally required by the hotel to explain in writing. His persistent failure to avail himself of these opportunities constituted a waiver of his right to be heard. Due process merely requires an opportunity to be heard, which was amply provided.
On substantive grounds, the dismissal was for a just cause. Betila occupied a position of trust as a room attendant with direct access to guest rooms and belongings. The employer successfully established, through the investigation reports, that Betila was the only person who entered the guests’ rooms prior to the discovery of the losses. The pattern of prior similar incidents further provided reasonable ground for the employer to believe Betila was responsible. In dismissal cases involving loss of trust and confidence, proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required; it is sufficient that the employer has reasonable grounds to believe the employee is guilty of the misconduct. The hotel therefore legally terminated Betila based on loss of trust and confidence. The NLRC decision was set aside.