G.R. No. 57268 - Manila Midtown Commercial Corp. vs. Nuwrain

On 22 August 1977, Alberto Masangkay was hired as a hotel roomboy by Manila Midtown Commercial Corporation at the Ramada Hotel.
On 13 February 1980, petitioner Corporation placed Masangkay under preventive suspension citing loss of trust and confidence.
The suspension was the precursor to his eventual termination, purportedly based on allegations concerning his involvement in criminal activities.

On 15 February 1980, petitioner Corporation filed an application with the Ministry of Labor and Employment (MOLE) for clearance to suspend and eventually terminate Masangkay, effective from the actual suspension date.
On 21 February 1980, Masangkay together with the labor union NUWHRAIN (Ramada Chapter) filed a formal Complaint with the MOLE challenging the clearance application.
Both parties subsequently submitted their respective position papers.

On 18 August 1980, the Director of the MOLE issued an Order dismissing the Complaint for lack of merit and granting the clearance application for preventive suspension leading to termination.
On 5 March 1981, the Deputy Minister of the MOLE set aside the Director’s Order and passed a new judgment directing the petitioner to reinstate Masangkay with full backwages and preservation of seniority rights, effectively reversing the earlier order.
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the Deputy Minister’s Order was denied on 1 June 1981.

Petitioner alleged that Masangkay had been involved in four (later claimed as five) separate hotel room burglaries between January 1979 and February 1980.
It was emphasized that these burglaries were reported in hotel rooms to which Masangkay was specifically assigned, and his failure to report for work on days following some incidents added to the suspicion.
However, multiple investigations conducted (in January, June, July 1979, and on 31 January 1980) failed to produce any evidence linking Masangkay to the acts of burglary.
Investigative measures included body searches, intensive scrutiny of the suspect’s belongings, and a thorough examination by the hotel’s security office.
Records revealed that other persons (e.g., friends of guests, janitors, chambermaids, housekeeper supervisor) had free access to the hotel rooms, yet no comparative investigations were conducted on them, thereby undermining the focus solely on Masangkay.

Apart from the initial suspension on the ground of loss of trust and confidence, petitioner later raised allegations that Masangkay had also violated hotel House Rules (lateness and unauthorized absences) between January and June 1979.
These additional charges were introduced only in the Motion for Reconsideration and not raised during the initial clearance application or earlier proceedings, rendering them procedurally untimely.
Petitioner’s failure to address these allegations at the proper time precludes their inclusion as a new ground for termination at this stage of the litigation.

Whether the dismissal of private respondent Masangkay on the ground of loss of trust and confidence, based predominantly on uncorroborated allegations related to hotel burglaries, is valid and sustains termination.
Whether the additional allegations of violations of hotel House Rules, raised only in the Motion for Reconsideration, can be considered as a proper ground for termination given their delayed presentation.
What is the appropriate remedy for the alleged illegal dismissal, particularly in terms of reinstatement versus payment of separation pay and the computation of backwages.