G.R. No. 150591 ; June 27, 2005
NORTHWEST TOURISM CORP., doing business by the name ASIAWORLD RESORT HOTEL PALAWAN, represented by its Authorized Representative ANGEL TOLENTINO, petitioner, vs. FORMER SPECIAL THIRD DIVISION OF THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and RAYMUNDO OCLARIT I, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Northwest Tourism Corporation, operator of Asiaworld Resort Hotel, dismissed private respondent Raymundo Oclarit I, a Night Auditor, on grounds of dishonesty and abandonment of work. The hotel alleged that Oclarit pocketed an excess cash deposit from a guest and subsequently failed to report for work after a 30-day preventive suspension. Oclarit contested his dismissal, claiming he properly processed the refund by handing the cash to a companion of the guest, as witnessed by a hotel clerk. He further asserted that after his suspension, he reported to the Personnel Manager, who told him to resign or be terminated with a bad record. Upon his refusal to resign, he was formally dismissed.
The Labor Arbiter initially dismissed Oclarit’s complaint, but the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the decision, finding the dismissal illegal and awarding backwages and separation pay. The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC’s ruling but absolved the hotel’s individual managers from liability. Petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review.

ISSUE

Was the dismissal of Raymundo Oclarit I for loss of trust and confidence and abandonment of work valid and legal?

RULING

No, the dismissal was illegal. For a dismissal based on loss of trust and confidence to be valid, the breach must be willful and founded on clearly established facts. The Court found petitioner’s evidence insufficient to prove Oclarit’s dishonesty. The alleged investigation was one-sided, relying on an unsworn statement from the guest and a report from the hotel’s own house detective, without giving Oclarit a genuine opportunity to confront the accusing witness. The charge of abandonment likewise fails. Abandonment requires a clear, deliberate, and unjustified refusal to resume employment, which the employer must prove. Oclarit’s act of reporting to the Personnel Manager after his suspension, as evidenced by the hotel’s security logbook, and his immediate filing of an illegal dismissal complaint negate any intention to abandon his job. The manager’s ultimatum for him to resign or be terminated demonstrated that the employer prevented his return to work. Consequently, the termination lacked just cause and due process. The Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court’s decision with modification, ordering the petitioner to pay Oclarit full backwages and separation pay.