G.R. No. 167310 ; June 17, 2008
THE PENINSULA MANILA, ROLF PFISTERER AND BENILDA QUEVEDO-SANTOS, petitioners, vs. ELAINE M. ALIPIO, respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Elaine M. Alipio was hired by petitioner The Peninsula Manila as a reliever nurse in December 1993. Despite her designation, she performed the usual tasks of a regular nurse for about four years. In 1997, after inquiring about her unpaid 13th month pay, she was paid for that year but her request for back pay for 1993-1996 was denied. On December 21, 1998, petitioner Benilda Quevedo-Santos, the HR manager, confronted Alipio about her possession of copies of her payslip vouchers. Santos was angered by Alipio’s explanation that she copied them because the hotel did not provide copies, and Santos then directed Alipio not to report for work anymore.
Alipio filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint but awarded separation pay, a decision affirmed by the NLRC which, however, deleted the separation pay. The Court of Appeals reversed these rulings, declaring Alipio a regular employee who was illegally dismissed, and ordered her reinstatement with full backwages, damages, and attorney’s fees.

ISSUE

The core issues were: (1) whether Alipio was a regular employee of The Peninsula Manila; and (2) whether her dismissal was legal.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petitioners’ appeal and affirmed the Court of Appeals. On the first issue, the Court held that Alipio attained regular employment status. The nature of her work as a nurse was necessary and desirable to the hotel’s main business of operating a 24-hour clinic. Her repeated engagement as a reliever for nearly four years demonstrated that her services were indispensable. The control exercised by the hotel over her schedule and duties further established an employer-employee relationship, making her a regular employee under Article 280 of the Labor Code.
On the legality of dismissal, the Court found it invalid for lack of just cause and due process. Alipio’s act of copying her payslips, while perhaps a violation of a company rule, did not constitute serious misconduct or willful disobedience under Article 282 of the Labor Code. The act did not cause substantial prejudice to the hotel or show a perverse attitude. Moreover, the dismissal was procedurally infirm; it was effected summarily without the requisite written notice and hearing. Consequently, as a regular employee unjustly dismissed, Alipio was entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights, full backwages, and other benefits. The awards for moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees were also upheld due to the bad faith evident in her abrupt termination.