G.R. No. 214915, December 07, 2015
OIKONOMOS INT’L RESOURCES CORPORATION (FORMERLY HILTON CEBU RESORT AND SPA), PETITIONER, VS. ANTONIO Y. NAVAJA, JR., RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Respondent Antonio Y. Navaja, Jr. was hired by petitioner Oikonomos Int’l Resources Corporation (then Hilton Cebu Resort and Spa) as a room attendant on December 27, 2004. On August 25, 2010, around 6:50 a.m., while double-checking Room 1202 after guest checkout, Navaja found a white Nike jacket. Needing both hands to carry a wine crate, he placed the jacket at the back of his pants, rode the elevator to the first floor, delivered the crate to the housekeeping office, placed the jacket in a black plastic bag, and left it beside a divider within the office intending to bring it to the Lost and Found Section later. He then went home, forgetting about the jacket. The hotel received a call from the guest reporting the lost jacket. CCTV footage showed Navaja entering the room twice and acting suspiciously. On August 26, 2010, around 1:00 a.m., security questioned Navaja, but he did not mention the jacket. Around 8:00 a.m. that same day, he brought the jacket to the Lost and Found Section and submitted a statement. Oikonomos cited Navaja’s history of infractions (verbal reprimand in 2008 for lost and found items in his pantry, written warning in 2008 for items in his cart, 15-day suspension in 2009 for inefficiency, and 7-day suspension in 2009 for insubordination), his failure to immediately report the found item, his act of concealing it, and his inconsistent statements. After preventive suspension and an administrative hearing, Oikonomos dismissed Navaja on September 24, 2010, for theft and dishonesty. Navaja filed an illegal dismissal complaint. The Labor Arbiter and the NLRC upheld the dismissal as valid. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding the dismissal illegal due to lack of intent to appropriate the jacket, as it was never brought outside hotel premises, and the justification for the delay in reporting.

ISSUE

Whether the dismissal of Navaja based on the just cause of serious misconduct was proven by Oikonomos with substantial evidence.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court REVERSED the Court of Appeals and REINSTATED the Labor Arbiter’s Decision finding the dismissal valid. The Court held that Oikonomos discharged its burden of proving, by substantial evidence, that Navaja committed serious misconduct warranting dismissal. The totality of Navaja’s actions—concealing the jacket by tucking it at his back and later placing it in a black plastic bag, his failure to immediately report or turn over the item despite several opportunities (including when initially questioned by security), and his submission of inconsistent statements—constituted clear dishonesty and a willful violation of company rules on handling lost and found items. His claim of forgetfulness was not credible. His past infractions, while not constitutive of habitual delinquency, were properly considered in determining the penalty. The element of intent to gain (animus lucrandi) for theft is not required for dismissal on the ground of serious misconduct or willful breach of trust; dishonesty alone suffices. The fact that the jacket was not brought outside the hotel premises does not negate the finding of dishonesty. The dismissal was for a just cause and complied with procedural due process.