Case Digest (G.R. No. 169494)
Facts:
Cabalen Management Co., Inc. v. Jesus P. Quiambao et al., G.R. No. 169494, March 14, 2007, Supreme Court Second Division, Carpio Morales, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners are Cabalen Management Co., Inc. (the company) and several of its officers; respondents are a group of former employees of the company's Cabalen restaurant at Quad, Glorietta, who worked as dining supervisor, cashier, receptionist, kitchen supervisor and waiters. On September 4, 2001 the company issued memoranda placing respondents on preventive suspension for 30 days and directing them to explain alleged violations of the company Code of Conduct; the respondents submitted written explanations within 48 hours.
On October 4, 2001, petitioners dismissed all respondents except Jesus P. Quiambao and Geraldine M. Palermo. The dismissals were premised on statements of co-employees Henry dela Vega Balen and Roderick Malana alleging tip-pocketing, serving without receipts or with tampered receipts, and other irregularities, and on an audit report dated September 19, 2001 concerning missing and irregular bar and dining order slips and receipts. Quiambao and Palermo were allegedly reassigned or left without assignment rather than being restored to prior duties.
Respondents filed consolidated complaints for illegal dismissal and related claims before a Labor Arbiter. By Decision dated November 27, 2002 the Labor Arbiter found respondents Lacson, De Leon, Deang, Pangilinan, De Guzman and Obien validly dismissed, but ordered reinstatement (without backwages) of Quiambao and Palermo; other monetary claims were mostly dismissed. The NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter by Resolution dated September 30, 2003; respondents’ motion for reconsideration was denied April 28, 2004.
The Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. SP No. 85159, reversed by Decision dated April 29, 2005 and denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration by Resolution dated August 25, 2005, ruling that the statements of Balen and Malana lacked probative value, the audit report did not attribute the irregularities to particular respondents, the company failed to follow statutory and internal procedural requirements, and several respondents were regular employees by virtue of servic...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- May this Court re-examine conflicting factual findings in a Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari?
- Did petitioners prove just or authorized causes for the dismissal of the respondents?
- Did petitioners observe the standards of due process required for termination based on just...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)