Norma Mabeza vs.

National Labor
Relations Commission, Peter
Ng/Hotel Supreme
G.R. No. 118506
April 18, 1997
Case Report by Geline Joy D. Samillano, LLB-2B

Parties Involved
Norma Mabeza
Petitioner of the case
She was one of the chambermaids employed at
Hotel Supreme

Peter Ng
Respondent of the case
Owner of Hotel Supreme and employer of Norma
Mabeza

Facts of the Case

An inspection by the Department of Labor and
Employment (DOLE) was conducted in the
premises of Peter Ngs hotel. The result of which
was unfavorable to the respondent.
By virtue of said inspection result, the respondent
asked his employees to sign an instrument
attesting to the latters compliance with the
minimum wage law and the labor standards law.

Facts of the Case

Norma Mabeza was one of the employees who
were made to sign the said instrument. But
when asked to appear before the Prosecutors
office and attest to the authenticity of the
document she signed, she refused to do so.

As result of Mabezas refusal, her relationship

with the management adversely changed
which ultimately led to her dismissal from
work.

Facts of the Case

Because of this, she filed a complaint for illegal
dismissal and alleged underpayment of wages,
non-payment of holiday pay and other benefits.

Aside from denying the allegations filed against

them, the respondent submitted a supplemental
answer 11 months thereafter where he raised a
new ground, loss of confidence, coupled with a
criminal complaint for Qualified Theft and
Perjury.

Facts of the Case

Labor Arbiter:
Dismissed the complaint filed on the basis of the
new ground, loss of confidence.
The charge of perjury against petitioner was
dismissed.

NLRC:
Affirmed the Labor Arbiters decision

Issue
Whether or not the dismissal by the private
respondent was illegal and constitutes unfair
labor practice?

Ruling
The court ruled in favor of Mabeza and ruled
for her entitlement to the economic benefits
sought.

Ratio Decidendi
Insufficient proofs to prove the legality of the
dismissal
The respondent was not able to present
substantial evidence to justify Mabezas dismissal.
It was an error to contend that Mabeza
abandoned her work based on the circumstances.
Her leave of absence for two days cannot qualify
as abandonment.
The justifications made as regards loss of
confidence was only an afterthought.

Loss of Confidence
This ground for dismissal applies only to:
Managerial rank employees
Employees tasked with safekeeping of money or
company trade secrets

In alleging this, it should be a genuine claim

and not attended by bad faith nor should it be
simulated.

Ratio Decidendi
The circumstances which led to the
employees dismissal can be considered as
unfair labor practice
In alleging unfair labor practice, the test is:
whether or not the employer has exerted
pressure in the form of restraint, interference,
coercion, against his employees right to institute
concerted action for better terms and conditions
of employment.

Ratio Decidendi
Deductions in the form of facilities must
conform with certain requirements set forth
by the law
Although permissible, facilities deducted on
employees wage should be proven:
That it is customarily furnished and there are tangible
proofs to this
That the employee accepted the deductions in writing
That the deductions must be at a fair and reasonable
value

Ratio Decidendi
An illegally dismissed employee is entitled to
economic benefits
There were evidences which points to an
employee being illegally dismissed. The only relief
not granted in the case of Mabeza was her
reinstatement to work.
The benefits granted to her are: separation pay,
backwages, service incentive leave pay, night
differential pay, 13th month pay, deficiency wages
and the applicable ECOLA, and Php1,000.