Facts:

The case involves Estrellita Aguilar as the petitioner and the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), Wack Wack Golf and Country Club, and Col. Perfecto V. Eugenio as the respondents. The events leading to the case began when Aguilar, who had been employed by the Wack Wack Golf and Country Club for 23 years, was dismissed from her position as an Accounting Clerk on May 12, 1988. Her dismissal was based on allegations of misconduct, specifically for signing restaurant and bar bills on behalf of club members without authorization. The club had been facing financial difficulties and had implemented a patronage fee of P200.00 per member to mitigate losses. Despite being informed of the club's rules prohibiting non-members from signing chits for members, Aguilar continued to do so, leading to her dismissal. Following her termination, Aguilar filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the NLRC on August 16, 1988. The Labor Arbiter ruled in her favor on March 10, 1989, de...

Facts:

Background and Employment

• The petitioner, Estrellita Aguilar, was employed by Wack Wack Golf and Country Club (the CLUB) for 23 years, serving as an Accounting Clerk with a monthly salary of P3,285.00.
• The CLUB, managed by Col. Perfecto Eugenio, operates two golf courses (East Course and West Course), a clubhouse with a restaurant and bar, and other sports facilities for its 1,310 members in Mandaluyong, Metro Manila.

Imposition of Patronage Fee and Operational Policies

• Prior to August 1, 1986, the CLUB had been incurring losses in its restaurant and bar operations.
• To remedy this, the CLUB, pursuant to a Board Resolution dated June 25, 1986, imposed a patronage fee of P200.00 per member effective August 1, 1986.
• Under the resolution, members whose restaurant/bar bills did not reach P200.00 were charged the difference, while non-users were still charged P200.00 per month.

Alleged Misconduct and Violation of Company Rules

• Petitioner, without the knowledge or consent of the management, ordered and consumed food from the CLUB’s restaurant/bar.
• She charged these orders against the patronage fees of CLUB members, specifically Jose Ma. Ozamis, Martin Cepeda, Roberto Reverente, and Alex Yu Gonzales.
• On January 29, 1988, upon discovery of her actions, the CLUB sent her a written notice of charges; however, she refused to receive it.
• An investigation ensued, and petitioner executed a written statement on January 31, 1988, explaining her side.
• Despite being repeatedly reminded that as a non-member she was not allowed under CLUB rules to sign bills or chits on behalf of members, petitioner continued the practice.

Dismissal and Subsequent Legal Proceedings

• On May 10, 1988, petitioner was dismissed for violating House Rule (A), Section 15(a) and House Rule (B), Section 7, in addition to charges of serious misconduct and breach of trust.
• On August 16, 1988, she filed a Complaint for Illegal Dismissal before the NLRC (National Labor Relations Commission) – NCR.
• On March 10, 1989, the Labor Arbiter ruled in her favor, ordering her reinstatement without loss of seniority, full backwages, moral and exemplary damages amounting to P30,000.00, and attorney’s fees.
• The CLUB appealed the decision, and on December 11, 1991, the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter's ruling, ordering instead that the CLUB pay petitioner an amount of P9,000.00 as financial assistance.
• Petitioner’s subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied on June 25, 1991, leading to the present petition for certiorari.

Applicable Company Rules and Legal Provisions

• House Rule (A), Section 15(a): Prohibits non-members, guests, or visitors from signing chits on behalf of members.
• House Rule (B), Section 7 (as amended): Restricts signing chits for food and beverage, allowing only spouses and dependents for themselves and their guests, with specific limitations on green fees.
• Article 282 of the Labor Code: Provides that an employer may terminate an employee for serious misconduct or willful disobedience of lawful orders, emphasizing the need for the conduct to be intentional and wrongful.

Issue:

Whether petitioner, as an employee and non-member, violated the CLUB’s established rules by signing restaurant and bar chits for and on behalf of CLUB members.

• Does the authorization allegedly granted by CLUB members remove the application of House Rule (A) and House Rule (B) to petitioner?
• Is the fact that petitioner is not a member of the CLUB sufficient to hold her liable under these Rules?

Whether petitioner’s continued conduct after being formally investigated and warned constitutes serious misconduct warranting dismissal.

• Whether her actions reflect willful disobedience and a “wrongful and perverse attitude” in violation of the employer’s lawful orders.

• Whether petitioner is entitled to financial assistance (separation pay) despite the established grounds for her termination on the basis of serious misconduct.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)