G.R. No. 214915 - Oikonomos International Resources Corporation vs. Navaja, Jr.

On December 27, 2004, Oikonomos Int’l Resources Corporation (formerly Hilton Cebu Resort and Spa) hired Antonio Y. Navaja, Jr. as a room attendant.
Navaja’s assigned duties involved housekeeping and cleaning tasks, specifically working during the graveyard shift from 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.

On August 25, 2010, at approximately 6:00 a.m., Navaja was ordered by the front office to check the minibar in Room 1202 after guests had checked out.
During his inspection, at around 6:50 a.m., Navaja discovered a white Nike jacket left in the room.
Recalling a separate task—to transport a wine crate from the ground floor to the housekeeping office—Navaja decided to conceal the jacket by placing it on his person (tucking it at the back of his pants) so that both hands remained free to carry the crate.
After riding the elevator, he brought the crate upstairs, placed the jacket inside a black plastic bag at the housekeeping office, and later left the bag beside a divider with the intention of transferring it to the Lost and Found Section.

That same day, after finishing his report and leaving the premises around 7:30 a.m., Navaja did not immediately report the finding of the jacket; instead, he later used time constraints (needing to take his children to school) as part of his explanation.
During his following shift on August 26, 2010, at approximately 1:00 a.m., the hotel security questioned Navaja about his work details via a Q&A form, inquiring into his whereabouts during his previous shift.
Although he suspected the questioning might be related to the jacket, Navaja chose to delay his full disclosure until around 8:00 a.m. when he turned the jacket over to the executive housekeeper and made a second statement.
On the same day, he was served a memorandum notifying him of a preventive suspension pending an explanation in writing regarding his alleged misconduct, with an administrative hearing scheduled for September 6, 2010.
Following his written explanation and administrative hearing, on September 24, 2010, Oikonomos formally dismissed Navaja for theft and dishonesty, citing violations of company rules and regulations.

January 18, 2008 – Lost and found items were retrieved from Navaja’s pantry, resulting in a verbal reprimand.
March 21, 2008 – Lost and found items were found inside his cart, leading to a written warning.
March 23, 2009 – Acts of inefficiency and incompetence prompted a 15-day suspension following guest complaints.
July 9, 2009 – Insubordination led to a 7-day suspension.

In the incident of August 25, 2010, CCTV footage reportedly captured Navaja entering Room 1202 twice and later acting suspiciously by turning his back to the camera as he concealed the jacket.
The employer contended that Navaja intentionally hid the jacket and failed to comply with the company’s lost and found reporting procedures, thereby committing serious misconduct.

The Labor Arbiter, in a May 25, 2011 decision, found that Navaja was validly dismissed on the grounds of theft and dishonesty.
The Arbiter emphasized that Navaja’s defense of forgetfulness was not credible in light of the CCTV footage, his delayed reporting, and the recorded discrepancies in his statements.
Although the Arbiter awarded Navaja his 13th month pay, service incentive leave (SIL) pay, and attorney’s fees, the dismissal was upheld as legal.
The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), in its decision dated December 29, 2011, also ruled in favor of the employer, confirming the validity of the dismissal based on the established violations and mishandling of company procedures.
Navaja’s subsequent motion for reconsideration before the NLRC was denied on February 29, 2012.

Navaja elevated his case on appeal before the CA, which nullified the NLRC decision, basing its ruling on:

The CA declared that Navaja was illegally dismissed, awarding him reinstatement, full backwages, monetary benefits, and separation pay.
Oikonomos filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied in a subsequent resolution dated September 4, 2014.
This led to the filing of a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court.

Whether a question of fact could be entertained in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

Specifically, the issue revolves around whether the Court may examine factual determinations made by lower tribunals when the case involves questions grounded in evidentiary findings.

Whether the dismissal of Navaja, based on a just cause of serious misconduct, was proven by Oikonomos with substantial evidence.

This involves examining if there is sufficient and credible evidence to support the claims of theft, dishonesty, and violation of company policy.
Considerations include the handling of the white Nike jacket, the alleged concealment of the item, the delay in reporting, and Navaja’s prior record of infractions.