G.R. No. 161957 - Gonzales vs. Climax Mining Ltd.

Rosario Maneja was employed as a telephone operator at Manila Midtown Hotel since January 1985.
She was a member of the National Union of Workers in Hotels, Restaurants and Allied Industries (NUWHRAIN), which had an existing Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) with the hotel.

On February 13, 1990, a fellow telephone operator, Rowena Loleng, received an RLDC form along with a deposit of P500.00 from a page boy for a Japanese guest, Hirota Ieda; the call was unanswered.
Later that day during a second attempt, another P500.00 deposit was collected by Loleng on behalf of the guest, and the second RLDC form was processed.
Upon realizing that the second RLDC form was not time-stamped, petitioner Maneja placed it in the machine to obtain a timestamp on February 15, 1990, and then altered the date to reflect February 13, 1990, so as to mirror the actual transaction date.

On March 7, 1990, the chief telephone operator issued a memorandum directing petitioner Maneja and Loleng to explain the anomaly regarding the RLDC form dating.
Both employees submitted their written explanations in response to the memorandum.
Subsequently, on March 20, 1990, a written report was issued by the chief telephone operator recommending that the actions of the operators be investigated as violations of Offenses Subject to Disciplinary Actions (OSDA) – specifically, OSDA 2.01 for forging or falsifying official documents and OSDA 1.11 for culpable carelessness or failure to follow established procedures.

On March 23, 1990, petitioner Maneja was served a notice of dismissal effective April 1, 1990, which she refused to sign without protest.
A criminal case for falsification of private documents and qualified theft was concurrently initiated against both petitioner and Loleng; however, the filing recommendation for a case on estafa was reversed by the prosecutor.

On October 2, 1990, petitioner Maneja filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before the Labor Arbiter, later amending the complaint to include claims for unpaid wages, vacation leave conversion, and moral damages.
The Labor Arbiter, after hearing the case, ruled in favor of petitioner on May 29, 1992, finding her dismissal to be illegal and ordering her reinstatement with backwages, 13th month pay, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees.

The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) issued a resolution on June 3, 1994, dismissing the illegal dismissal case on the basis that the dispute should have been subjected to voluntary arbitration as it fell under the grievance procedure set forth in the CBA.
A subsequent NLRC resolution dated October 20, 1995, denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
Petitioner, through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court, challenged these resolutions and the jurisdictional finding of the NLRC.

Petitioner contended that her termination was not an unresolved grievance subject to the voluntary arbitration mechanism under Article 261 of the Labor Code, but rather a termination dispute that falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter under Article 217.
Petitioner argued that the practice of directly referring termination cases to the Labor Arbiter, bypassing the grievance committee, vitiated the NLRC ruling and amounted to an abuse of discretion.
Conversely, the private respondent and the Solicitor General cited precedents (e.g., Sanyo Philippines Workers Union-PSSLU vs. CaAizares) to support the proposition that disputes involving interpretation or enforcement of company personnel policies should be routed through the grievance machinery before being elevated to the Labor Arbiter.

Whether the Labor Arbiter had original and exclusive jurisdiction over the illegal dismissal case, considering that the dispute involves termination rather than an unresolved grievance subject to voluntary arbitration under the CBA.
Whether the alteration of the RLDC form’s date and the alleged violations of OSDA 2.01 and OSDA 1.11 constituted sufficient grounds for dismissal.
Whether private respondent is estopped from later challenging the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter given its active participation in the proceedings and absence of a timely objection.
Whether petitioner’s right to due process was violated in that she was terminated without a full and proper opportunity to be heard before the dismissal.