Maneja v NLRC_case Digest

Maneja v NLRCG.R. No. 124013. June 5, 1998 Facts: Maneja worked for Manila Midtown Hotel as a telephone operator. She was also a member of the Union (NUWHRAIN) with a CBA. A fellow telephone operator named Lelong received a Request for Long Distance Call (RLDC) and a deposit from a guest named Hiota Ieda. The call was unanswered and the P500 deposit was forwarded to the cashier. Ieda made a second call and second P500 deposit but the call was also unanswered. Loleng passed on the RLDC to Maneja for follow up. Maneja monitored the call. A hotel cashier after inquired about the P1000 deposit made by Ieda. After a search, Loleng found the first deposit in the guest folio and the second in the folder for cancelled calls. Finding that the second call was stamped with the wrong date, Maneja changed it from Feb. 15 to Feb 13, 1990. Loleng then delivered the RLDC and money to the cashier. The chief telephone operator issued a memorandum directing Maneja and Loleng to explain the incident and recommended they be subject to disciplinary action for forging falsifying official documents and culpable carelessness for failure to follow specific instruction or established procedure. Maneja was served with a notice of dismissal, and wrote instead “under protest”. Petitioner filed for illegal dismissal before the labor arbiter, who held that petitioner was illegally dismissed, however he held that the complaint was on its face within the juridical ambit of the grievance procedure under the CBA and if unresolved one for proper voluntary arbitration. The Hotel appealed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction as the case should have been filed with the proper grievance procedure or voluntary arbitration. The NLRC affirmed the decision. Petitioner’s MR was denied, hence this petition for certiorari arise. Issues: 1. WON the LA had jurisdiction over the illegal dismissal case. 2. Was there illegal dismissal? Held: 1. Termination cases fall under the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter as contemplated in LC 217, but it should be read in conjunction with LC 261 which grants to voluntary arbitrators original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide all unresolved grievances arising from the interpretation of CBA or of enforcement of personnel policies. In the Sanyo case, the Sol. Gen. argued that a distinction should be made between interpreting the CBA and enforcing personnel policies and a termination case. Dismissal does not involve CBA or personnel policy. Where the dispute is just in interpretation, they could resort to the grievance mechanism, but when there was actual termination, it was already cognizable by the Labor Arbiter. In this case, there has been an actual termination. The LA does have jurisdiction under LC 217, otherwise an employee who was on AWOL or committed offenses would no longer be able to file illegal dismissal cases because

the discharge would be premised on the interpretation enforcement of company policies. The Hotel also voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the tribunal. 2. Yes. Given the factual circumstances there was no dishonesty. The money was all eventually found and the date was a correction, not falsification. There was also no hearing, merely a request for written explanation.