G.R. No. 110776 - Maranaw Hotel and Resort Corp. vs. National Labor Relations Commission

Private respondent CIRO BETILA was employed as a room attendant of Century Park Sheraton Hotel – Manila, a hotel operated by petitioner MARANAW HOTEL & RESORT CORPORATION.
His tenure spanned from June 22, 1980 until his termination on July 22, 1989.

On January 22, 1989, Japanese guest Motomu Okumura reported the loss of 40,000 Japanese yen and US$210 from his hotel room.
The Tourist Security Division of the Department of Tourism investigated the incident.
It was determined that private respondent was the room attendant assigned to Mr. Okumura’s room on that day.
Private respondent was invited to appear on the same day to explain the complaint, but he failed to attend the investigation.
The investigation, carried out in his absence, revealed that he had reported for duty that morning, left early at about 2:00 p.m., and no other room attendant entered the room until the loss was discovered later at 5:00 p.m.
The report also noted a pattern: from June 1986 to December 1988, there were 12 reported losses in rooms under his assignment, all occurring under circumstances that provided him an opportunity to evade investigation immediately thereafter.

On April 5, 1989, another Japanese guest, Mr. Masatoshi Kusumoto, reported a loss of money—a separate incident from that of Mr. Okumura.
The Tourist Security Division again identified private respondent as the only person who serviced Mr. Kusumoto’s room before the discovery of the loss.
He was summoned to explain on April 8, 1989, but once more he failed to appear.
The investigation, including evidence from a worksheet submitted by private respondent, confirmed that he was solely responsible for accessing the room prior to the reported incident.

On May 5, 1989, Executive Housekeeper Nicolas R. Kirit issued a letter to private respondent, conveying the findings and recommendations of the Department of Tourism investigations (including the incidents of January 22 and April 5).
The letter required private respondent to submit his explanation within 48 hours upon receipt; however, he neither appeared nor provided a written defense.
Based on the investigation and his repeated failure to respond, the petitioner evaluated the findings and decided to terminate his employment through a dismissal memorandum dated July 17, 1989.
Private respondent refused to acknowledge the receipt of the dismissal notice and subsequently filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice against the petitioner.

Labor Arbiter Salimathar V. Nambi rendered a decision on November 8, 1991, declaring the dismissal illegal and ordering the immediate reinstatement of private respondent.
The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) – Second Division affirmed the labor arbiter’s decision on appeal.
Petitioner then raised a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 contesting the NLRC’s findings on grounds of due process and absence of just cause.

The petitioner argued that contrary to the respondent’s assertion, private respondent was not denied due process since he was given ample opportunity to explain his side during the investigations.
Moreover, the petitioner maintained that his dismissal was justified on the basis of repeated noncompliance with the investigation procedures and consistent patterns of misconduct as evidenced by the investigative reports.

Whether private respondent was denied due process in relation to the dismissal because he was not given a meaningful opportunity to be heard.

Examination of whether the notice and hearing procedures complied with the requirements stipulated under the Labor Code.
Consideration of the fact that private respondent was invited to explain his actions on multiple occasions yet failed to appear or provide any written defense.

Analysis of the petitioner’s investigation practices including the investigative reports from the Tourist Security Division.
Determination of whether the evidence of a recurring modus operandi established sufficient grounds to justify the dismissal.

The extent of the employer’s burden in proving employee misconduct in dismissals based on breach of trust and confidence.

Comparative analysis of the present case with prior cases such as Manila Midtown Commercial Corporation v. Nuwhrain (Ramada Chapter).
Consideration of procedural differences, including the timing of investigations relative to the employee’s duty schedule.