G.R. No. 124013 June 5, 1998
ROSARIO MANEJA, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and MANILA MIDTOWN HOTEL, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Rosario Maneja worked for private respondent Manila Midtown Hotel beginning January 1985 as a telephone operator and was a member of the National Union of Workers in Hotels, Restaurants and Allied Industries (NUWHRAIN), which had an existing Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) with the hotel. On February 13, 1990, a fellow operator, Rowena Loleng, received two deposits of P500.00 each from a guest for long-distance calls. The calls were unanswered, and the deposits were mishandled. On February 15, 1990, when a cashier inquired about the deposits, Loleng found them. Petitioner, upon seeing the second Request for Long Distance Call (RLDC) form was not time-stamped, placed it in the stamping machine, which dated it February 15, 1990. Realizing the error, she manually changed the date to February 13, 1990. Following a memorandum and written explanations, the chief telephone operator recommended disciplinary action for forging/falsifying an official document and culpable carelessness. Petitioner was served a notice of dismissal on March 23, 1990, effective April 1, 1990, which she received “under protest.” A criminal case filed against her and Loleng was eventually reversed. On October 2, 1990, petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the Labor Arbiter. The Labor Arbiter, in his decision dated May 29, 1992, initially noted that the case involved the interpretation/implementation of company policies, which under Article 217 of the Labor Code should be referred to the grievance procedure and voluntary arbitration. However, he assumed jurisdiction because termination cases fall under the original and exclusive jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters, and declared the dismissal illegal, ordering reinstatement, backwages, and damages. Private respondent appealed to the NLRC, arguing the Labor Arbiter erred in assuming jurisdiction. The NLRC, in its Resolution dated June 3, 1994, dismissed the illegal dismissal case for lack of jurisdiction, holding it should have been subjected to voluntary arbitration, citing the case of Sanyo Philippines Workers Union-PSSLU vs. Cañizares. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

Whether or not the Labor Arbiter has jurisdiction over the illegal dismissal case filed by petitioner.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, set aside the NLRC Resolutions, and reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s decision with modification regarding the computation of monetary awards. The Court held that termination disputes fall under the original and exclusive jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters pursuant to Article 217(a)(2) of the Labor Code. The Court clarified that its ruling in Sanyo, which stated that grievances arising from the implementation of company personnel policies should be referred to the grievance machinery and voluntary arbitration, applies to disputes that are not termination cases. The phrase “except as otherwise provided under this Code” in the opening sentence of Article 217 refers to paragraph (c) of the same article, which mandates that cases arising from the interpretation or implementation of collective bargaining agreements and company personnel policies shall be disposed of by referring them to the grievance machinery and voluntary arbitration. However, this paragraph (c) does not include termination disputes. Termination disputes are specifically listed under paragraph (a)(2) and are within the Labor Arbiter’s jurisdiction. The Court further ruled that the Labor Arbiter correctly assumed jurisdiction and that his finding of illegal dismissal was supported by the evidence, as the act of changing the date on the RLDC form did not constitute willful disobedience or serious misconduct warranting dismissal. The employer failed to prove a clear, valid, and legal cause for termination. The principle of estoppel by laches was also applicable, as the private respondent actively participated in the proceedings before the Labor Arbiter without raising the jurisdictional issue until appeal.