THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. L-57268. March 25, 1988.]
MANILA MIDTOWN COMMERCIAL CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. NUWHRAIN (Ramada Chapter), ALBERTO MASANGKAY, and HON. VICENTE LEOGARDO, JR., Deputy Minister, Ministry of Labor and Employment, Respondents.
Marquinez, Juanitas, Bolos & Associates for Petitioner.
Maximo S. Masangkay for Private Respondent.
The Solicitor General for public respondents.
SYLLABUS
1. LABOR AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION; LABOR CODE; TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT; LOSS OF TRUST AND CONFIDENCE, VALID GROUND. — The dual grounds of breach of trust and loss of confidence — upon which the dismissal of private respondent Masangkay was based — constitute valid and ample bases to warrant termination of an errant employee.
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; EMPLOYEES ALLOWED WIDER LATITUDE OF DISCRETION IN TERMINATING MANAGERIAL EMPLOYEES. — As a general rule, however, employers are allowed a wider latitude of discretion in terminating the employment of managerial personnel or those of similar rank performing functions which by their nature require the employer’s full trust and confidence, than in the case of ordinary rank-and-file employees, whose termination on the basis of these same grounds requires proof of involvement in the events in question; mere uncorroborated assertions and accusations by the employer will not suffice.
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; DISMISSAL OF ROOMBOY FOR ALLEGED INVOLVEMENT IN THEFTS, ILLEGAL. — The job of a roomboy or chambermaid in a hotel is clearly of such a nature as to require a substantial amount of trust and confidence on the part of the employer. Hotel guests are particularly vulnerable to a dishonest or thieving roomboy or chambermaid and hotel guests who are so victimized can very quickly prejudicially affect the reputation and business of a hotel. Private respondent Masangkay, a roomboy at the Manila Midtown Ramada Hotel, was thus holding a sensitive job; but he was also of the hotel rank and file. He was charged, though only administratively, with theft and subsequently investigated by petitioner Corporation to determine his participation in the mentioned hotel room burglaries. As things turned out, private respondent Masangkay’s criminal involvement in the thefts reported was never established; apart from petitioner Corporation’s own suspicions on the matter, no proof whatsoever was presented to implicate private respondent Masangkay in said burglaries. Consequently, the dismissal of private respondent Masangkay on the ground of loss of trust and confidence cannot be sustained.
4. ID.; ID.; ID.; ILLEGALLY DISMISSED EMPLOYEE ENTITLED TO BACKWAGES. — We conclude that, in view of our finding of illegal dismissal in this case, private respondent Masangkay is entitled to receive, and petitioner Corporation is obligated to pay backwages for three (3) years, without qualification and deduction.
5. ID.; ID.; ID.; ILLEGAL DISMISSAL; SEPARATION PAY MUST BE GRANTED IN LIEU OF REINSTATEMENT. — Turning to the matter of reinstatement, considering the sensitive character of the job of a roomboy, the Court believes that substantial justice to both parties would best be served by requiring petitioner to reinstate private respondent Masangkay to a reasonably equivalent but non-sensitive position in the hotel for which the latter would be qualified. Should such a position be non-available or non-existent at this time, or should private respondent Masangkay not find such a position acceptable, then petitioner shall pay him his separation pay in lieu of such reinstatement. The amount of such separation pay — one-half (
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; EMPLOYEES ALLOWED WIDER LATITUDE OF DISCRETION IN TERMINATING MANAGERIAL EMPLOYEES. — As a general rule, however, employers are allowed a wider latitude of discretion in terminating the employment of managerial personnel or those of similar rank performing functions which by their nature require the employer’s full trust and confidence, than in the case of ordinary rank-and-file employees, whose termination on the basis of these same grounds requires proof of involvement in the events in question; mere uncorroborated assertions and accusations by the employer will not suffice.
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; DISMISSAL OF ROOMBOY FOR ALLEGED INVOLVEMENT IN THEFTS, ILLEGAL. — The job of a roomboy or chambermaid in a hotel is clearly of such a nature as to require a substantial amount of trust and confidence on the part of the employer. Hotel guests are particularly vulnerable to a dishonest or thieving roomboy or chambermaid and hotel guests who are so victimized can very quickly prejudicially affect the reputation and business of a hotel. Private respondent Masangkay, a roomboy at the Manila Midtown Ramada Hotel, was thus holding a sensitive job; but he was also of the hotel rank and file. He was charged, though only administratively, with theft and subsequently investigated by petitioner Corporation to determine his participation in the mentioned hotel room burglaries. As things turned out, private respondent Masangkay’s criminal involvement in the thefts reported was never established; apart from petitioner Corporation’s own suspicions on the matter, no proof whatsoever was presented to implicate private respondent Masangkay in said burglaries. Consequently, the dismissal of private respondent Masangkay on the ground of loss of trust and confidence cannot be sustained.
4. ID.; ID.; ID.; ILLEGALLY DISMISSED EMPLOYEE ENTITLED TO BACKWAGES. — We conclude that, in view of our finding of illegal dismissal in this case, private respondent Masangkay is entitled to receive, and petitioner Corporation is obligated to pay backwages for three (3) years, without qualification and deduction.
5. ID.; ID.; ID.; ILLEGAL DISMISSAL; SEPARATION PAY MUST BE GRANTED IN LIEU OF REINSTATEMENT. — Turning to the matter of reinstatement, considering the sensitive character of the job of a roomboy, the Court believes that substantial justice to both parties would best be served by requiring petitioner to reinstate private respondent Masangkay to a reasonably equivalent but non-sensitive position in the hotel for which the latter would be qualified. Should such a position be non-available or non-existent at this time, or should private respondent Masangkay not find such a position acceptable, then petitioner shall pay him his separation pay in lieu of such reinstatement. The amount of such separation pay — one-half (
