G.R. No. 143397 - Alcantara, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals

Santiago Alcantara, Jr. was employed by The Peninsula Manila, Inc. as a Commis II in the Food and Beverage Department.
He also served as a Director of the National Union of Workers in Hotels Restaurants and Allied Industries (NUWHRAIN) – Manila Peninsula Chapter.
The dispute arose following a memorandum issued by the Hotel on August 7, 1998, which prohibited the use of the union office from midnight until 6:00 in the morning.

On August 18, 1998, at about 1:30 AM, Alcantara was spotted in the union office accompanied by Conrad Salanguit and Ma. Theresa Cruz; they left around 2:20 AM.
On August 20, 1998, Alcantara and a male companion entered the union office; later that evening, he was seen seated in the office with his legs on a table while his companion (identified as Salanguit) was lying on a bench with the lights off.
A security officer reminded him of the memorandum, but Alcantara and Salanguit refused to leave immediately, staying until around 3:30 AM on August 21, 1998.

On August 28, 1998, a memorandum from Sous Chef-Production Arsenio Olmedilla notified Alcantara of a Security Department report regarding his presence in the office during restricted hours, requiring a written explanation within 24 hours.
Alcantara submitted his explanation on the same day, arguing that:

The memorandum conflicted with the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), which had previously permitted unrestricted access to the union office.
His actions were not connected to his primary duties as a Commis II and were only undertaken during breaks or off-duty hours.

On November 26, 1998, Alcantara was again found violating the memorandum by being seen on the bench in the union office between 12:50 AM and 5:50 AM; despite being reminded, he initially refused to leave.

A subsequent memorandum dated December 7, 1998, from Assistant Food and Beverage Manager Noel Silva reiterated the violation and demanded an explanation to avoid disciplinary action.
Alcantara reaffirmed his opposition, stressing that the memorandum was inconsistent with the CBA and amounted to unlawful interference with the employees’ right to self-organization.
On January 4, 1999, the Hotel terminated Alcantara’s employment for alleged willful and blatant refusal to comply with the management’s orders.
A Preventive Mediation process ensued following strike threats from the union, leading to a Memorandum of Agreement dated February 4, 1999, which among its provisions, referred the termination issue to Voluntary Arbitrator Noel G. Sanchez and ensured that Alcantara continued receiving his basic salary and service charge pending resolution.

On April 5, 1999, Voluntary Arbitrator Noel G. Sanchez rendered a decision declaring Alcantara’s dismissal illegal and ordered his reinstatement without loss of his rights.
The Hotel then filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied on April 30, 1999.
On May 26, 1999, the Hotel elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals through a petition for review under Rule 43.
The Court of Appeals, in its decision on November 24, 1999, set aside the Voluntary Arbitrator’s award by annulling the previous decisions.
Alcantara filed a petition for reconsideration with the Court of Appeals, which was denied on May 16, 2000, prompting the present petition.

That the Court of Appeals erred in invoking Section 2, Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, alleging its inapplicability to judgments under the Labor Code.
That his dismissal for willful disobedience was contrary to established jurisprudence because it lacked the requisite wrongful and perverse attitude and was based on an order unrelated to his work duties.

The petitioner maintained that the use of the union office was permitted under longstanding practice and the CBA, and that his actions were motivated by an honest belief in the unlawfulness of the memorandum.

Whether the dismissal of Santiago Alcantara, Jr. for willful disobedience was justified under the law.

Did Alcantara’s presence in the union office during the prohibited hours, despite management’s directive, amount to “willful disobedience”?
Was his behavior characterized by the wrongful and perverse attitude required to justify dismissal?

Whether the memorandum issued by the Hotel on August 7, 1998 was a reasonable and lawful regulation affecting the use of the union office.

Is the memorandum valid given its inconsistency with the Collective Bargaining Agreement that had previously allowed 24-hour use of the union office?
Does the memorandum constitute an interference with the union’s rights or legitimate activities?

Whether Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure applies to decisions of voluntary arbitrators under the Labor Code.

Is the decision of the voluntary arbitrator, who functioned in a quasi-judicial capacity, subject to appellate review under Rule 43?
How does the statutory exception provided by Section 2, Rule 43 affect the appealability of such decisions?