Regala vs. Manila Hotel Corp.

Facts:

Allan Regala v. Manila Hotel Corporation, G.R. No. 204684, October 05, 2020, Supreme Court Second Division, Hernando, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Allan Regala (Regala) filed a complaint for constructive dismissal and regularization, non-payment of paternity leave pay, and backwages against respondent Manila Hotel Corporation (MHC) and several of its officers. Regala was hired by MHC in February 2000 as a waiter and later assigned as cook helper; he worked six days a week and received regular remittances to SSS and PhilHealth. MHC nonetheless characterized him as an extra or freelance waiter engaged under short-term “Service Agreements” or fixed-term contracts that were periodically executed for specific functions or dates.

The Labor Arbiter (LA) dismissed Regala’s complaint on September 8, 2010, finding him a fixed-term employee who voluntarily executed Service Agreements and that there was no proof of coercion or of constructive dismissal. Regala appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). In its March 24, 2011 Decision (denied reconsideration in its May 31, 2011 Resolution), the NLRC reversed the LA, held Regala to be a regular employee under Article 295 of the Labor Code, found that MHC reduced his workdays from five to two beginning December 2, 2009 (diminishing his pay), and declared that he was constructively dismissed; it ordered reinstatement and backwages.

MHC sought certiorari relief before the Court of Appeals (CA) arguing its fixed-term hiring practice was a valid exercise of management prerogative; the CA, in a May 22, 2012 Decision (denied reconsideration November 19, 2012), granted the petition, set aside the NLRC, and dismissed the complaint as devoid of merit on the ground that Regala had validly entered into fixed-term agreements. MHC later attempted to submit, for the first time before the Supreme Court, photocopies of Regala’s Daily Time Records (DTRs) and payroll journals (March 4, 2009 to March 4, 2016 / January 25, 2009 to February 25, 2016) via a March 10, 2016 Manifestation; Regala opposed admission of these belated records.

Regala filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 challenging the CA decisio...(Pro-only)

Issues:

• Whether the belated documentary evidence (DTRs and payroll journals) submitted by MHC to the Supreme Court should be admitted.
• Whether Regala is a regular employee of MHC.
• Whether Regala was constructively dismissed f...(Pro-only)

Ruling:

• (Pro-only)

Ratio:

• (Pro-only)

Doctrine:

• (Pro-only)