G.R. No. 150591 - Northwest Tourism Corp. vs. Court of Appeals

Petitioner is the Northwest Tourism Corporation, doing business as Asiaworld Resort Hotel Palawan, which owns and operates the hotel where the incident occurred.
Respondent is Raymundo Oclarit I, who was employed as an Outlet Cashier and subsequently promoted to the position of Night Auditor at Asiaworld Resort Hotel.
Other key personnel include Asuncion Del Rosario (the person who deposited funds on behalf of hotel guests), the night clerk Benjamin Adriano, and supervisory personnel such as the Resident Manager, Assistant Resident Manager, and Personnel Manager of the hotel.

Oclarit was hired as an Outlet Cashier on May 3, 1994, and later promoted to Night Auditor on February 20, 1996.
On May 27, 1996, Asuncion Del Rosario deposited P6,000 with the hotel for the account of her guests (Ceasar Roque, Pepito Santos, and Ben Roque). On May 28, 1996, after the guests checked out, Del Rosario settled the bill (P3,097.80) and signed a paid out voucher for the refund of an excess deposit.
The excess deposit of P3,050 was left in the hotel with the understanding that it would be returned to the guests in a subsequent transaction.

Around 2:00 in the morning on May 30, 1996, the guests checked in again at Asiaworld Hotel. Despite knowing of the prior excess deposit, Oclarit required them to pay a deposit.
Oclarit allegedly asked one of the guests, Ceasar Roque, to sign a document without explaining its nature, which later was understood to be the paid out voucher for the refund of the deposit.
After checking out around 9:30 in the morning, Roque discovered the discrepancy regarding the excess deposit, prompting a demand for its refund.
A complaint was made by Roque and his companions, after which the hotel’s personnel manager initiated an investigation.

Following the complaint, the hotel suspended Oclarit for a period of 30 days (effective from June 20, 1996) pending investigation, possibly based on the House Detective’s investigation report alleging that Oclarit pocketed the excess deposit.
Subsequent memos and letters were issued:

A memo from the Assistant Resident Manager (June 10, 1996) instructing Oclarit to submit a written explanation within 48 hours.
Oclarit submitted his explanation on June 12, 1996.
A second memo from the Personnel Manager on June 19, 1996 placed him under preventive suspension again until further notice.
A letter dated July 22, 1996 informed Oclarit that his suspension had ended on July 20 and that he was required to report to the Personnel Manager by July 28.
Oclarit reported on July 26, 1996, but was told by Personnel Manager Java that his explanation was unsatisfactory and that he should resign to avoid termination with a bad record.

When Oclarit refused to resign, a termination memo dated August 1, 1996 was issued, effective August 5, 1996, citing dishonesty regarding the excess deposit and abandonment of work after suspension.
On August 5, 1996, Oclarit filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the Labor Arbitration Branch in Puerto Princesa City, Palawan.

The Labor Arbiter dismissed Oclarit’s complaint for illegal dismissal on January 17, 2000, finding insufficient evidence of misappropriation but noting the lack of convincing evidence that an excess deposit had been refunded, thereby affecting the trust reposed in him.
The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the Labor Arbiter’s decision on appeal, ruling that the dismissal was illegal as it was based on mere suspicion and baseless conclusions without proof that Oclarit abandoned his job.
The NLRC ordered Asiaworld Hotel to pay Oclarit full backwages from August 5, 1996, as well as separation pay computed from his date of hire.
On further appeal, the Court of Appeals modified the NLRC Decision by absolving the Resident Manager, Assistant Resident Manager, and Personnel Manager from the petitioner’s liability, holding that corporate liability rested solely with the corporation unless directors or officers acted with malice or bad faith.

The sole issue for resolution is whether there was sufficient legal ground for the termination of Oclarit’s employment.
This involves an examination of whether the acts allegedly committed by Oclarit, particularly the handling of the excess deposit, sufficiently constituted a loss of trust and confidence on the part of the employer.