Case Digest (G.R. No. 103209)
Facts:
Apolonio Bondoc and Genuine Labor Organization of Workers in Hotel, Restaurant and Allied Industries (GLOWHRAIN)-Silahis International Chapter v. National Labor Relations Commission and Silahis International Hotel, Inc., G.R. No. 103209, July 28, 1997, Supreme Court Third Division, Francisco, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner GLOWHRAIN, the certified bargaining agent of rank-and-file employees of private respondent Silahis International Hotel (SILAHIS), and petitioner-employee Apolonio Bondoc filed a strike notice on September 27, 1990, alleging harassment, arbitrary transfer, and illegal suspension and termination of Bondoc. Conciliation before the National Conciliation and Mediation Board failed; the Secretary of Labor certified the dispute for compulsory arbitration to the public respondent National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) by order dated October 31, 1990. The parties submitted position papers, replies and evidence to the NLRC.
The NLRC, after hearing, promulgated a decision in March 1991 (Commissioner Romeo Putong, ponente; Presiding Commissioner Bartolome Carale and Commissioner Vicente Veloso III concurring) declaring Bondoc’s dismissal valid and legal. The NLRC also treated any earned payroll reinstatement as financial assistance and canceled it. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration before the NLRC was denied (Resolution promulgated September 27, 1991). Petitioners then filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC in upholding the dismissal.
The NLRC’s factfindings recounted four separate incidents between August 20 and 23, 1990 in which Bondoc allegedly threatened a co-employee, Vima Valenzuela, and hurled invectives; Valenzuela’s affidavit was corroborated by co-employees whose sworn statements were not denied. SILAHIS issued a September 3, 1990 memorandum charging Bondoc and directing him to explain; Bondoc made a marginal notation protesting receipt. SILAHIS placed Bondoc under preventive suspension on September 6, 1990 and later terminated his services effective October 6, 1990 by memorandum dated October 4, 1990. The NLRC found Bondoc’s utterances constituted threats/coercion under the hotel’s rules; because the hotel’s disciplinary scheme classified repeated threats as a 3rd–4th degree offense warranting dismissal on the fourth commission, the NLRC concluded dismissal was substantively justified. However, the NLRC found procedural defects and awarded Bondoc P2,000.00 as indemnity for ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the NLRC commit grave abuse of discretion in upholding Bondoc’s dismissal for just cause?
- Was Bondoc accorded procedural due process in his dismissal, and if not, what relief is ap...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)