FACTS: Private respondent was employed as “housekeeper” with monthly compensation of Php 8,000. After two months, he signed a new employment contract with petitioner Condo Suite Club Travel, Inc. under the same terms of employment. Both firms belong to the ARCON group of companies. His salary was reduced. He also owned a car-for-hire which he rented to Joselito Landrigan who operated the car as a taxi with himself as driver. Landrigan approached the front desk clerk at petitioner’s hotel requesting a collectible of Php 2000 be added to a certain Korean guests, Mr. Hu’s bill. Mr. Hu later complained that he was over billed. Private respondent explained his side being the front desk supervisor and owner of the car. Eventually, petitioner’s staff confirmed the error and refunded the amount to the Korean. Petitioner terminated the services of private respondent on the ground of loss of confidence for the latter’s malicious intent to defraud a guest of the hotel.
ISSUE: Whether or not private respondent was illegally dismissed.
HELD: Yes. Petitioner failed to prove by ample evidence that private respondent intended to defraud Mr. Hu. The front desk clerk admitted being the one responsible for entering the Php 2000 in Mr. Hu’s statement of account. Also, Landrigan admitted approaching the front desk clerk to demand payment of the transportation fee as he was hired by Mr. Hu’s group for two days believing in good faith that Mr. Hu owed him Php 2000. Also, there is no indication that petitioner was afforded due process as, in fact, it was only upon service of termination that private respondent realized that the complaint of Mr. Hu was directed at him. As there is no valid and just cause, he is entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights plus full backwages and other benefits withheld from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement.
0 comments:
Post a Comment