Facts:
Floren Hotel and/or Ligaya Chu,
Dely Lim, and
Jose Chua Lim (petitioners) sought to annul the Court of Appeals’ September 10, 2002 Decision in
CA-G.R. SP No. 60685, insofar as it ruled that petitioners constructively dismissed private respondents
Roderick A. Calimlim and
Ronald T. Rico, and therefore held petitioners liable for their proportionate
thirteenth month pay,
service incentive leave pay, and
indemnity. At the time of their termination, Calimlim and Rico worked as room boys,
Jun A. Abalos also worked in the hotel,
Lito F. Bautista served as front desk man, and
Gloria B. Lopez was a waitress; all except Abalos started working in
1993. In the afternoon of June 6, 1998, petitioner Dely Lim conducted a random inspection of hotel rooms. In Room 301, Lim found Bautista sleeping half-naked with the air-conditioning on; she admonished Aquino, the acting supervisor with oversight over Bautista, for inadequate supervision because it was Bautista’s third offense of a similar nature. In Room 303, Lim saw Calimlim and Rico drinking beer with four bottles in front of them, after they had taken beer from the hotel’s coffee shop, and they likewise had switched on the air-conditioning. That afternoon, Lim prepared a memorandum citing Bautista for multiple incidents and, in Aquino’s presence and before other workers, attempted to deliver the memorandum to Bautista, who refused to receive it; Bautista then went absent without leave. Calimlim and Rico, embarrassed by the incident, went home but returned the next day and were served with a notice of suspension for one week; they refused to receive the notice but instead served the suspension. Upon their return on June 15, 1998, they saw a memorandum dated June 13, 1998 posted on the bulletin board announcing that they would be suspended as room boys or, alternatively, returned to work on
probation as janitors for reasons including unsatisfactory work, a drinking spree inside hotel rooms, cheating on the Daily Time Record, absence without valid reason, leaving work during duty time, tardiness, and sleeping on the job, together with a new work schedule. Calimlim and Rico submitted handwritten apologies and pleaded for another chance, but later went absent without leave. On June 25, 1998, Calimlim, Rico, and Bautista filed separate complaints for
illegal dismissal and money claims before the Labor Arbiter in Dagupan City; Calimlim and Rico alleged they were constructively dismissed, while Bautista claimed that Lim orally told him not to return because he had already been dismissed. Abalos and Lopez later filed separate complaints for underpayment and nonpayment of their thirteenth month pay and service incentive leave pay. After petitioners allegedly refused to allow reinstatement unless private respondents withdrew the complaints, Abalos and Lopez amended their complaints on July 7, 1998 and claimed that petitioners orally dismissed them when they refused to withdraw. Petitioners denied dismissal and instead asserted that private respondents had abandoned their jobs. Private respondents then filed a manifestation and motion dated November 24, 1998 praying for reinstatement, but there was no showing that the Labor Arbiter resolved that motion. On March 19, 1999, the Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaints but ordered petitioners to pay the private respondents their proportionate thirteenth month pay and service incentive leave pay, and ordered petitioners to pay Calimlim and Rico indemnity for failure to observe the
twin-notice rule, while finding that the five complainants were not illegally dismissed but had
abandoned their work; it also ruled that the demotion and reassignment of Calimlim and Rico were valid management prerogatives and involved no wage diminution. The Labor Arbiter further held that the allegation of oral dismissal by Abalos and Lopez was insufficient. On March 22, 2000, the
NLRC reversed, concluding that petitioners failed to prove abandonment and that Calimlim and Rico were constructively dismissed when they were demoted from room boys to janitors and reclassified as probationary employees; however, it denied damages and attorney’s fees for lack of proof of maliciousness or bad faith. On September 10, 2002, the
Court of Appeals modified the NLRC: it ruled that Calimlim and Abalos (as reflected in its dispositive portion, with later typographical issues raised by private respondents) were illegally dismissed and ordered reinstatement with backwages, or separation pay if reinstatement was no longer possible; it declared Bautista, Jun Abalos, and Lopez to have abandoned their employment and thus denied backwages and separation pay; it also ordered payment to all private respondents of the proportionate thirteenth month pay and service incentive leave pay as computed by the Labor Arbiter, and it upheld Calimlim and Rico’s indemnity of PHP 1,500 each. The petition before the Supreme Court raised procedural issues on the due course of the certiorari petition, the legality of dismissal and abandonment, and the correctness of awarding indemnity and the monetary benefits.
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in giving due course to the petition for certiorari filed before the appellate court despite the alleged failure to attach all relevant pleadings and documents?
- Were private respondents illegal dismissed, or did they abandon their employment?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in ordering petitioners to pay indemnity of PHP 1,500 to Calimlim and Rico?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in ordering petitioners to pay all private respondents their proportionate thirteenth month pay and service incentive leave pay?
Ruling:
Ratio:
Doctrine: