Maneja vs Nlrc 290 Scra 603

MANEJA VS NLRC 290 SCRA 603 (1998) FACTS: Petitioner Rosario Maneja worked with private respondent Manila Midtown Hotel beginning January 1985, as a telephone operator. She was a member of the National Union of Workers in Hotels, Restaurants and Allied Industries (NUWHRAIN) with an existing CBA with the private respondent. In February 13, 1990, a fellow telephone operator, Rowena Loleng, received a request for long distance call (RLDC) form and a deposit for P500.00 from a Japanese guest but the call was unanswered. The deposit was then forwarded to the cashier. The same evening, the Japanese guest again made an RLDC and deposited another P500.00 but the call was also unanswered. Loleng passed the RLDC to Maneja for follow up. ON February 15, the cashier inquired about the P1000 deposit made. After a search, the first one was found in the guest folio while the other in the folder for cancelled calls. Petitioner Maneja saw that the 2 nd RLDC form was not time stamped so she placed it in the machine to stamp it with the date February 15. But after realizing that the call was made 2 days before, she changed the date to February 13. On March 7, the chief telephone operator asked the petitioner and Loleng to explain the Feb 15 incident. Both submitted their written explanation. On March 20, a written report was submitted, stating that their actions were covered violations of the Offenses Subject to Disciplinary Action (OSDA) as 1. Forging, falsifying official documents and; 2. Culpable carelessness—negligence or failure to follow specific instruction/s or established procedure/s On March 23, petitioner was then served notice of dismissal effective on April 1. She refused to sign and wrote “under protest.” On October 2, 1990, Maneja filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against private respondent before the labor arbiter (LA). LA found that the petitioner was illegally dismissed, stating that even though the case revolves on the matter of implementation and interpretation of company policies and is thus within the jurisdiction of the grievance procedure under the CBA, Art. 217 Labor Code confers original and exclusive jurisdiction of all termination cases to LA. NLRC dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction of LA because the case was subject to voluntary arbitration. Petitioner insists that her termination is not an unresolved grievance as there had been no grievance meeting between the union and the management. Petitioner alleged that it has been a company policy that termination cases are not referred to the grievance machinery but directly to LA. ISSUE: W/N MANEJA’S TERMINATION WAS WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW HELD: Petitioner was illegally dismissed as there are two requisites in a valid dismissal: 1. That the dismissal must be for any causes expressed in Art 282 Labor

Code and; 2. The employee must be given an opportunity to be heard and to defend himself. 1. There is no cause for dismissal as the petitioner’s actions were not contrary to company practice and there is also no basis for personal appropriation based on the facts 2. An examination of the record reveals that no hearing whatsoever was ever conducted by the Hotel before Maneja was dismissed. While it may be true that the petitioner submitted a written explanation, no hearing was actually conducted before she was terminated. She was not accorded the opportunity to fully defend herself which is clearly a violation of her right to due process. Art. 260 Labor Code further provides that the parties to a CBA shall name or designate their respective representative to the grievance machinery and if the grievance is unsettled in that level, it shall automatically be referred to the voluntary arbitrators designated in advance by the parties to a CBA of the union and company. It can thus be deduced that only disputes involving the union and the company shall be referred to the grievance machinery or voluntary arbitrators. In the case at bar, the union does not have into the picture, not having objected or voiced any dissent to the dismissal of Maneja. The reason for this, according to the petitioner is that “the practice in said hotel in cases of termination is that the latter cases are not referred anymore to the grievance committed; and that the terminated employee who wishes to question the legality of his termination usually goes to LA for arbitration, whether the termination arose from the interpretation or enforcement of the company policies or otherwise.”