Facts:

The case at bar involves two consolidated petitions originating from two separate cases concerning Leo A. Gonzales and the Acesite Corporation, along with Holiday Inn Manila, Johann Angerbauer, and Phil Kennedy as respondents. Gonzales was initially hired as the Chief of Security for Manila Pavilion Hotel on October 18, 1993. After Acesite Corporation took over operations on January 1, 1995, renaming it Holiday Inn Manila, Gonzales continued his employment in the same capacity.

On March 25, 1998, Gonzales took a four-day sick leave, followed by an emergency leave on March 30, 1998. Subsequently, he filed for a twelve-day vacation leave from April 16 to April 29, 1998, consuming all his available leave credits. Gonzales applied for another ten days of emergency leave starting April 30, 1998, which was not approved. Despite this, Gonzales failed to report back to work on April 30, 1998, leading Acesite to send him several telegrams regarding his unauthorized absenteeism. Gonzales

...

Facts:

Background and Employment History

• Leo A. Gonzales was hired on October 18, 1993, as Chief of Security of Manila Pavillion Hotel.
• On January 1, 1995, Acesite Corporation took over operations of the hotel, renaming it Holiday Inn Manila, and retained Gonzales in his position.

Leaves and Absences

• On March 25, 1998, Gonzales availed a 4‑day sick leave, followed by an emergency leave on March 30, 1998.
• Between April 16–29, 1998, he took a 12‑day vacation leave, using up his annual leave credits.
• Before the expiration of his vacation leave (April 23, 1998), he filed an application for an additional 10‑day emergency leave (April 30–May 13, 1998), which was not approved by Acesite.

Communication and Initial Warning

• Gonzales received a telegram from Acesite informing him that his emergency leave was disapproved and ordering him to report for work on April 30, 1998.
• When he failed to report on April 30, 1998, a subsequent telegram was sent demanding a written explanation within 24 hours and instructing him to resume work on May 1, 1998.
• On May 2, 1998, a telegram from his father explained his continuing illness, and a medical certificate dated May 3, 1998, confirmed he was under treatment for a stomach disorder from April 30 to May 3, 1998.

Subsequent Developments on May 4, 1998

• Gonzales reported to work around midday on May 4, 1998, and explained his absences to Resident Manager Johann Angerbauer.
• Discrepancy arose:
• Angerbauer maintained that Gonzales was ordered to report and questioned his tardiness.
• Gonzales claimed he had, in fact, secured a provisional approval for leave without pay effective May 5–9, 1998, on the condition of sending an explanatory email regarding his absences on April 30 and May 2, 1998.
• Later that day, Gonzales sent an email detailing his reasons—including his sick condition and his need to return to his province in Abra.
• An inter‑office memo was later issued to him by Angerbauer, requiring further explanation about his absence on May 1, 1998, and his late reporting on May 4, 1998.
• On May 5, 1998, after Gonzales had not reported for work, another telegram was sent reiterating the urgency for him to return immediately.

Termination and Filing of Complaint

• On May 7, 1998, Angerbauer issued a Notice of Termination via inter‑office memo stating that Gonzales was terminated immediately for alleged gross disobedience, insubordination, and violations under the House Code of Discipline (specifically Rule 27, Type C).
• Gonzales attempted to return on May 8, 1998, but was barred from entering the premises by the hotel’s guard.
• Subsequently, Gonzales filed a complaint for illegal dismissal on May 27, 1998, seeking reinstatement and payment of full backwages, service incentive leave, 13th month pay, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees.
• After a series of hearings, including dismissals and refilings, the case advanced from the Labor Arbiter to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and eventually to the Court of Appeals.

Procedural History and Further Controversies

• The Labor Arbiter initially dismissed Gonzales’ complaint for failure to appear in consecutive hearings, but after refiling, found that Gonzales was dismissed for just cause and that due process was not violated.
• The NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter’s decision with orders for immediate reinstatement, payment of backwages from May 16, 1998, and the award of moral, exemplary, and attorney’s fees.
• Acesite filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals challenging the NLRC ruling on several grounds, including abuse of discretion and lack of just cause for termination.
• Gonzales, in his separate petition, argued errors in the modification of the NLRC award concerning fringe benefits, the option for reinstatement, the calculation of separation pay, and the quantum of moral and exemplary damages.

Issue:

Validity of the Termination

• Was Gonzales’ termination justified under Article 282 of the Labor Code and the company’s House Code of Discipline?
• Did Gonzales’ alleged unauthorized absences warrant dismissal, or were they more appropriately subject to a lesser penalty (e.g., suspension)?

Due Process Compliance

• Were procedural due process rights, including the notice and hearing requirements, observed before Gonzales was terminated?
• Did Acesite provide a written notice containing the specific grounds for dismissal as required under Article 277 of the Labor Code?

Evidentiary Issues

• Was the evidence presented—particularly the telegrams, medical certificate, and inter‑office communications—sufficient to establish Gonzales’ willful disobedience or absence without valid cause?
• Could the discrepancies in the timing and receipt of the telegrams undermine the claim of intentional misconduct?

Award of Damages and Remedies

• Is reinstatement a viable remedy given Gonzales’ position of trust and confidence within the hotel?
• Should Gonzales be awarded only separation pay rather than reinstatement, and what is the appropriate quantum for moral and exemplary damages in light of the circumstances?
• What is the justifiable amount for attorney’s fees considering the impact of the dismissal on Gonzales?

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)