G.R. No. 246531 - Benedict Princer San Juan vs. Regus Service Centre Philippines B.V.

Petitioner Benedict Princer San Juan was employed as the Network Operations Manager at Regus Service Centre Philippines B.V. and led the Manila IT Networks Team.
His employment status placed him in a managerial role, inherently requiring a high level of trust and professional conduct.

Regus sponsored a team building activity at Executive Wellspring Resort in Pansol, Laguna from June 12–14, 2014.
The activity was interrupted by an incident involving San Juan and his subordinate, Ruben Cruz, when they both ended up in the females’ room during the event.
The incident reportedly involved excessive alcohol consumption by team members, including San Juan, leading to erratic behavior.
Specific allegations included:

San Juan, heavily intoxicated, attempted to jump from the second floor into a pool.
Both San Juan and Cruz were found sleeping in the females’ room, with subsequent conflicting accounts regarding the occurrence of a “sleepwalking” episode and allegations of sexual molestation.

The incident was reported to Maria Isabel Bernal, the HR head, on July 14, 2014, triggering a formal investigation.
Several employees, including Guy Whitehouse, Erickson Santos, Karen Arguelles, and others, were interviewed to gather evidence and accounts.
Testimonies and accounts revealed:

The team was consuming excessive alcohol during the activity.
San Juan exhibited behavior that was deemed indecent – such as sleeping in a room allocated for females and his erratic conduct after the incident.
Conflicting narratives emerged:

According to Cruz, San Juan sexually molested him by making unwanted physical advances and actions, including inappropriate touching and attempts to kiss him, which escalated into a physical struggle.
In contrast, San Juan admitted his intoxication and acknowledged being in the room but claimed that he had secured the consent of the female employees and, moreover, accused Cruz of initiating inappropriate behavior.

Following the incident, both San Juan and Cruz were placed under preventive suspension from July 14 to July 25, 2014.
A formal investigation commenced:

Bernal issued a first Notice to Explain on July 30, 2014, requiring San Juan to justify his actions.
San Juan submitted a written narration on July 17, 2014, where he admitted his intoxication and partially acknowledged his actions while denying sexual molestation accusations.

Subsequent administrative hearings were conducted on August 4, 5, and 7, 2014, during which:

San Juan's explanation was considered, though he later claimed that the conducted investigation breached company rules by being presided over by external counsel.
A second Notice to Explain followed on August 14, 2014, emphasizing discrepancies in his earlier account and addressing additional charges.

On August 20, 2014, Regus issued a Notice of Termination citing violations of company policies, including indecent behavior and breach of trust—grounds for serious misconduct and analogous offense under Article 282 of the Labor Code.

San Juan instituted an illegal dismissal case challenging the validity of his termination.
The Labor Arbiter (LA) in a decision dated April 27, 2017, dismissed his complaint for lack of merit, yet ordered payment of his proportionate 13th month benefit.
The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) later ruled in his favor on August 31, 2017, finding him illegally dismissed and ordering separation pay and attorney’s fees, though it denied backwages based on his professional misconduct.
After motions for reconsideration by both parties, the Court of Appeals (CA) in its decision dated October 18, 2018, reinstated the LA’s decision on the ground that there were just causes for dismissal due to loss of trust and confidence, reversing the NLRC ruling.
Finally, San Juan filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Supreme Court challenging the CA’s reinstatement of the LA ruling.

Whether the CA erred in finding that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion by reversing its decision and reinstating the LA’s ruling dismissing San Juan’s illegal dismissal complaint.
Whether the evidence presented was sufficient to establish that, as a managerial employee in a position of trust and confidence, San Juan’s conduct during the team building event justified his dismissal.
Whether the procedural due process requirements were observed in the administrative investigation and subsequent disciplinary actions against San Juan.