Case Digest (G.R. No. 225586)
Facts:
The Peninsula Manila and Sonja Vodusek, petitioners, vs. Edwin A. Jara, respondent, G.R. No. 225586, July 29, 2019, the Supreme Court Second Division, Lazaro-Javier, J., writing for the Court.
Respondent Edwin Jara was employed by The Peninsula Manila from 2002 until his dismissal in 2011 and became captain waiter in 2009. On July 22, 2011, while assigned to the closing shift of the hotel’s buffet restaurant Escolta, Jara discovered a P6,500 discrepancy between actual cash on hand and the cash transaction records for Table 32: the sales receipt showed P7,113.08 but the cash register/tape receipt and posted entry reflected only P613.00. Jara informed supervisor Jimmy Tabamo and, instead of posting the full amount, he posted P613.00 in the system and kept the P6,500 excess in his office locker.
Jara did not report the overage immediately. He missed work July 23 (his birthday) and July 24 (his day off) but dined at the Escolta on the 23rd. He informed the internal auditor only when he returned to work on July 25, 2011, and gave the money to a captain waitress for safekeeping rather than surrendering it to his supervisor as advised. On July 27, 2011, the hotel issued a Memorandum to Explain accusing him of dishonesty, misrepresentation, and falsification; after an administrative hearing on August 11, 2011, Jara was terminated by Memorandum dated September 28, 2011 for misappropriation/falsification and dishonesty under the Hotel’s Code of Discipline.
Jara filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter (Decision dated March 30, 2012) found Jara illegally dismissed and ordered reinstatement with backwages and related benefits. The NLRC reversed and upheld the dismissal (Decision dated March 27, 2013). On petition for certiorari the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the NLRC and held the dismissal illegal (Decision dated January 25, 2016, penned by Associate Justice Francisco P. Acosta), and denie...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was Edwin Jara illegally dismissed? ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)