GR 118506; (April, 1997) (Digest)
G.R. No. 118506 . April 18, 1997.
NORMA MABEZA, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and PETER NG/HOTEL SUPREME, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Norma Mabeza was an employee of Hotel Supreme in Baguio City. In May 1991, management instructed her and co-employees to sign a joint affidavit attesting to the hotel’s compliance with labor standards, aimed at refuting adverse findings from a prior DOLE inspection. Mabeza signed but refused to proceed to the City Prosecutor’s Office to swear to the affidavit. On the same day, she was ordered to surrender her keys and remove her belongings from the hotel premises. Her subsequent leave of absence was denied, and when she attempted to return to work on May 10, she was told not to report. She thus filed a complaint for illegal dismissal on May 13, 1991.
In response, private respondent Peter Ng initially claimed Mabeza abandoned her work and asserted her money claims were paid via facilities. Eleven months after the complaint was filed, Ng raised a new ground of loss of confidence, supported by a criminal complaint for Qualified Theft he had filed against Mabeza in July 1991, alleging she stole hotel items. The Labor Arbiter and the NLRC upheld the dismissal based on this alleged loss of confidence.
ISSUE
Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming petitioner’s dismissal based on loss of confidence.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the NLRC resolution. Loss of confidence, to be a valid cause for dismissal, must be based on a willful breach of trust founded on clearly established facts. The employer bears the burden of proof. Here, the charge of qualified theft was raised belatedly as an afterthought, nearly two months after the illegal dismissal complaint was filed. The employer failed to prove the alleged theft with substantial evidence. The filing of a criminal complaint alone does not justify dismissal; the factual basis must be established in the labor case.
Furthermore, the dismissal was procedurally infirm. Petitioner was never informed of the theft charge nor given an opportunity to explain prior to her termination, violating her right to due process. The sequence of events—her refusal to swear to the affidavit followed immediately by her ouster—strongly suggests her dismissal was actually due to her refusal to cooperate in management’s scheme to deceive DOLE, which constitutes illegal dismissal. The Court awarded petitioner full backwages, separation pay, accrued wage and benefit deficiencies, and nominal damages for the due process violation.