Case Digest (G.R. No. 97196)
Facts:
China City Restaurant Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission, Monico Dieto and Junilito Cablay, G.R. No. 97196, January 22, 1993, Supreme Court Second Division, Campos, Jr., J., writing for the Court.China City Restaurant Corporation (petitioner) employed Monico Dieto and Julinito Cablay (private respondents) as chief steamer and roasting helper, respectively. In 1988 Dieto became president of the China City Employees Union, which thereafter demanded recognition from petitioner. In October 1988 a co-employee, Abe Fuentes, was arrested for allegedly stealing dried scallops from petitioner. After his release on bail (which petitioner paid) Fuentes, on January 20, 1989, executed a statement implicating private respondents; an amended information later named them co-accused in a qualified theft case, and Fuentes eventually turned state witness.
Petitioner terminated the private respondents on May 22, 1989, citing loss of trust and confidence. The private respondents filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the Department of Labor and Employment. After submissions and an investigation the Labor Arbiter rendered a decision dated January 17, 1990, declaring the dismissals illegal and ordering reinstatement with full backwages and attorney’s fees, but dismissing claims for moral and exemplary damages. Petitioner appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).
By Resolution dated November 29, 1990 the NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s decision but modified the remedy by granting private respondents separation pay with full backwages in lieu of reinstatement. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration before the NLRC was denied on January 22, 1991. Separately, on March 25, 1991 the Regional Trial Court acquitted the private respondents of the criminal charge of qualified theft on the ground of reasonable doubt. Petitioner then filed the ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the NLRC commit grave abuse of discretion in holding that petitioner failed to afford private respondents due process in dismissing them?
- If the dismissal was illegal, was the NLRC’s alternative award of separation pay with full backwages proper instead...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)