G.R. No. 122866 June 19, 1997
MELVA NATH, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, SHANGRI-LA HOTEL MANILA and AL WYMANN, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Melva Nath began working as Director of Rooms for respondent Shangri-La Hotel Manila on June 1, 1992, under a probationary period not exceeding six months. On September 4, 1992, during a regular weekly meeting, Resident Manager Gerard Sintes apprised Nath of her poor work performance and non-compliance with company rules, in anticipation of her evaluation scheduled for September 11. Nath did not dispute or justify the findings. On September 7, Nath called in sick and did not report for work. Personnel Manager Teresa Lalin reminded her to submit a medical certificate. Nath did not report as promised on September 9. Lalin and Sales Director Gami Holazo visited Nath at her residence to relay General Manager Al Wymann’s directive for her to report and reminded her of the September 11 evaluation. On September 10, Nath sent a letter dated September 9, stating her return to work would depend on receiving a satisfactory performance evaluation. On September 14, the hotel dismissed Nath via a letter citing her unauthorized absences since September 7 and failure to advise the hotel of her status. Nath filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled in her favor, ordering reinstatement, backwages, damages, and attorney’s fees. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed this decision, dismissing the complaint but ordering payment of salaries for the remaining probationary period and a penalty for non-compliance with due process.

ISSUE

Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in upholding the legality of petitioner’s dismissal despite alleged lack of due process and insufficient evidence of substandard work performance.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the NLRC decision. It held that while petitioner was dismissed without due process, as the employer failed to furnish the required two written notices (one apprising her of the acts or omissions and another informing her of the decision to dismiss), there was just cause for her dismissal as a probationary employee. The Court found that the issue of her substandard work performance was raised before the Labor Arbiter, as evidenced by the substantial portion of the respondents’ Position Paper detailing her unsatisfactory performance, including failure to comply with company rules, insufficient work output, and poor quality of completed tasks. The NLRC’s findings, supported by substantial evidence such as an affidavit from Sintes which Nath had the opportunity to cross-examine, are accorded respect and finality. As a managerial employee on probation, Nath was expected to meet reasonable standards set by the employer, which she failed to do. Following the precedent in Wenphil Corporation vs. NLRC, the dismissal for just cause is maintained despite the procedural defect, meaning Nath is not entitled to reinstatement, backwages, damages, or attorney’s fees. The NLRC’s order for payment of salaries for the remaining probationary period and a penalty for due process non-compliance stands.