The Peninsula Manila vs. Alipio

A reliever nurse who renders more than one year of intermittent service in activities usually necessary or desirable in the employer’s business becomes a regular employee under Article 280 of the Labor Code, and may be dismissed only for a just cause under Article 282 and after an opportunity to be heard and defend herself. Obtaining copies of one’s own payslips is not serious misconduct, especially where the employer is duty-bound to furnish them.

The Peninsula Manila is a hotel corporation; Rolf Pfisterer and Benilda Quevedo-Santos were its general manager and human resources manager at the time of the controversy. Elaine M. Alipio was a nurse who rendered services at the hotel’s clinic. The Labor Code’s provisions on regular employment and security of tenure supply the statutory backdrop for the dispute.

The Peninsula Manila operates a hotel and maintains a clinic open 24 hours a day, staffed by three regular nurses working eight-hour shifts; reliever nurses substitute for regular nurses who are off-duty or absent. Elaine M. Alipio was hired as a reliever nurse and began working at the hotel on December 11, 1993. From the start, she performed the usual tasks and functions of a regular nurse. A Certification dated April 22, 1997 issued by the hotel stated that she was a “regular staff nurse” until her dismissal.

After about four years of employment, Alipio inquired why she was not receiving her 13th month pay. Petitioners required her to submit a summary of her tour of duty for 1997; after she submitted it, Alipio was paid P8,000 as her 13th month pay for 1997. She also requested payment of her 13th month pay for 1993 to 1996, but her request was denied.

On December 18, 1998, a fellow nurse informed Alipio that she could report for work only after meeting petitioner Santos. When Alipio met Santos on December 21, 1998, Santos asked her about her payslip vouchers. Alipio told Santos that she made copies of her payslip vouchers because Peninsula does not give her copies. Santos was peeved with Alipio’s response because Alipio was allegedly not entitled to get copies of her payslip vouchers. Santos then directed Alipio not to report for work anymore.

Aggrieved, Alipio filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against the petitioners. The Labor Arbiter and NLRC found that Alipio was not a regular employee of Peninsula and that she was validly dismissed; the CA found these findings unsupported by the evidence on record.

• Finality of NLRC Factual Findings: Petitioners argued that the CA should have accorded due respect and finality to the unanimous findings of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC because those findings were supported by substantial evidence on record.
• Just Cause and Due Process: Petitioners maintained that Alipio was terminated for a just cause and with due process.
• Reinstatement to Regular Staff Nurse Position: Petitioners argued that Alipio cannot be reinstated as a regular staff nurse because she never served in that capacity and there was no vacancy for that position or an equivalent one.

• Scope of Judicial Review: Alipio countered that the NLRC decision was not beyond judicial review because palpable mistake was committed in disregarding evidence showing her status as a regular employee and petitioners’ failure to observe substantive and procedural due process.
• Regular Employment: Alipio argued that she was a regular employee of Peninsula, pointing to the hotel’s Certification dated April 22, 1997 showing she was a regular staff nurse until her illegal dismissal; her supposed employment at Quezon City Medical Center did not negate her work as a regular nurse of the hotel.
• Just Cause: Alipio contended that obtaining copies of her own payslips did not indicate a perverse attitude justifying dismissal for serious misconduct or willful disobedience, and there was no showing that her refusal to return copies caused material damage to petitioners.
• Due Process and Bad Faith: Alipio claimed petitioners failed to observe substantive and procedural due process and that bad faith attended her dismissal.

• Finality of NLRC Factual Findings: Whether the CA erred in reversing the Labor Arbiter’s and NLRC’s factual findings despite the general rule according respect and finality to factual findings of quasi-judicial agencies supported by substantial evidence.
• Regular Employment: Whether Alipio was a regular employee of The Peninsula Manila under Article 280 of the Labor Code.
• Just Cause (Serious Misconduct): Whether Alipio’s act of obtaining copies of her payslips constituted serious misconduct justifying dismissal under Article 282 of the Labor Code.
• Procedural Due Process: Whether Alipio was afforded an opportunity to be heard and to defend herself before her dismissal.
• Reinstatement, Backwages, and Damages: Whether Alipio is entitled to reinstatement, full backwages and benefits, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees.

• Finality of NLRC Factual Findings: No. The general rule of respect for factual findings of quasi-judicial agencies yields when the Labor Arbiter and NLRC misappreciated the facts and impaired the worker’s constitutional and statutory right to security of tenure.
• Regular Employment: Yes. Under Article 280 of the Labor Code, Alipio became a regular employee after rendering more than one year of intermittent service as a reliever nurse, and the hotel’s April 22, 1997 Certification recognized her as a regular staff nurse.
• Just Cause (Serious Misconduct): No. Obtaining copies of her own payslips was not serious misconduct; it was incumbent on Peninsula to give her copies as a matter of course.
• Procedural Due Process: No. On December 21, 1998, Alipio was not informed that dismissal was contemplated or of its ground; she was simply told she was already dismissed, with no opportunity to be heard.
• Reinstatement, Backwages, and Damages: Yes. As an illegally dismissed regular employee, Alipio is entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges, and to full backwages, allowances, and other benefits from withholding to actual reinstatement; separation pay in lieu if reinstatement is no longer feasible. Moral damages are reduced to P15,000 and exemplary damages to P10,000, with attorney’s fees at 10% of the total monetary award.

• Finality of NLRC Factual Findings: The SC acknowledged the doctrinal rule that factual findings of quasi-judicial agencies like the NLRC are generally accorded respect and finality if supported by substantial evidence, citing Trendline Employees Association-Southern Philippines Federation of Labor vs. NLRC. It held, however, that the SC may deviate when the Labor Arbiter and NLRC misappreciated the facts, resulting in impairment of the worker’s constitutional and statutory right to security of tenure. Because the conclusions that Alipio was not a regular employee and that she was validly dismissed were not supported by law and evidence, the CA correctly reversed them.

• Regular Employment: Article 280 of the Labor Code provides that an employment is regular where the employee is engaged to perform activities usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer, except project or seasonal employment; any employee who has rendered at least one year of service, whether continuous or broken, is considered regular with respect to the activity in which employed, and employment continues while the activity exists. The SC applied De Leon vs. National Labor Relations Commission. Records showed Alipio’s services were engaged intermittently from 1993 to 1998; her services as reliever nurse were necessary and desirable in the hotel’s business of providing comfortable accommodation to guests. Since she rendered more than one year of intermittent service as reliever nurse, she became a regular employee as early as December 12, 1994. The hotel’s own Certification dated April 22, 1997 stated she was a “regular staff nurse” until her dismissal.

• Just Cause (Serious Misconduct): Article 282 allows termination for serious misconduct or willful disobedience. The SC defined misconduct as any forbidden act or dereliction of duty; it is willful and implies wrongful intent, not mere error in judgment; to be serious, it must be grave and not merely trivial, citing Lakpue Drug, Inc. vs. Belga. Alipio’s act of obtaining copies of her payslips could not be characterized as misconduct, much less grave misconduct. The SC found it absurd that she had to resort to her own resourcefulness to get copies because Peninsula, as employer, was duty-bound to give her copies as a matter of course. Thus, dismissal was not based on a just cause.

• Procedural Due Process: A valid dismissal requires both a just cause under Article 282 and an opportunity for the employee to be heard and defend himself, citing Voyeur Visage Studio, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals. When Santos met Alipio on December 21, 1998, Alipio was not informed that the hotel was contemplating her dismissal, nor was she informed of the ground for dismissal. She was simply told right there and then that she was already dismissed, leaving no opportunity to be heard and defend herself. Thus, she was deprived of procedural due process.

• Reinstatement, Backwages, and Damages: Because Alipio was illegally dismissed, she is entitled under Article 279 to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from the time compensation was withheld up to actual reinstatement. If reinstatement is no longer feasible, she is entitled to separation pay equivalent to one month pay for every year of service in lieu of reinstatement, citing P.J. Lhuillier, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission. Moral damages are recoverable where dismissal is attended with bad faith or contrary to good customs, citing Mayon Hotel & Restaurant vs. Adana; exemplary damages may be awarded if dismissal is wanton, oppressive, or malevolent, citing Kay Products, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals. The SC found bad faith and due process deprivation because petitioners recognized Alipio as regular employee in the April 22, 1997 Certification yet deprived her of copies of her payslips and dismissed her without due process. It reduced moral damages to P15,000 and exemplary damages to P10,000. Attorney’s fees of 10% of total monetary award is consistent with prevailing jurisprudence, citing Micro Sales Operation Network vs. National Labor Relations Commission.

• Regular Employment under Article 280 — An employment is regular where the employee is engaged to perform activities usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer, except project or seasonal employment; any employee who has rendered at least one year of service, continuous or broken, is considered a regular employee with respect to the activity in which employed, and employment continues while the activity exists. The SC applied this to Alipio: her reliever nurse work was necessary and desirable to the hotel’s business, and more than one year of intermittent service made her regular as early as December 12, 1994; the hotel’s April 22, 1997 Certification also called her a regular staff nurse.
• Security of Tenure and Twin Requisites of Valid Dismissal — A regular employee may be dismissed only (1) for a just cause under Article 282 of the Labor Code and (2) after an opportunity to be heard and defend himself. The SC found both requisites absent: obtaining copies of her own payslips was not serious misconduct, and she was simply told she was dismissed without notice of the contemplated dismissal or its ground.
• Serious Misconduct — Misconduct is any forbidden act or dereliction of duty; it is willful and implies wrongful intent, not mere error in judgment; to be serious, it must be grave and not merely trivial. The SC held Alipio’s act of copying her payslips was not misconduct, much less grave misconduct, because the employer was duty-bound to furnish her copies.
• Damages in Illegal Dismissal — Moral damages are recoverable where dismissal is attended with bad faith or contrary to good customs; exemplary damages may be awarded if dismissal is wanton, oppressive, or malevolent; attorney’s fees equivalent to 10% of the total monetary award is consistent with prevailing jurisprudence. The SC applied these to reduce moral damages to P15,000 and exemplary damages to P10,000 while affirming attorney’s fees.
• Factual Findings of Quasi-Judicial Agencies — Factual findings of quasi-judicial agencies like the NLRC are generally accorded respect and finality if supported by substantial evidence, but the SC may deviate if the Labor Arbiter and NLRC misappreciated the facts and impaired the worker’s constitutional and statutory right to security of tenure. The SC applied this exception to reverse the NLRC and Labor Arbiter findings.

• "an employment shall be deemed to be regular where the employee has been engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer" — The SC quoted Article 280 to define regular employment and applied it to Alipio’s work as a reliever nurse.
• "any employee who has rendered at least one year of service, whether such service is continuous or broken, shall be considered a regular employee with respect to the activity in which he is employed and his employment shall continue while such activity exists." — This is the statutory basis for holding Alipio regular after more than one year of intermittent service.
• "Alipio's act of obtaining copies of her payslips cannot be characterized as a misconduct, much less a grave misconduct." — The SC used this to reject the claim that Alipio was dismissed for just cause.
• "When Santos had a meeting with Alipio on December 21, 1998, she was not informed that the hotel was contemplating her dismissal. Neither was she informed of the ground for which her dismissal was sought." — The SC relied on this to find that Alipio was deprived of procedural due process.

• Trendline Employees Association-Southern Philippines Federation of Labor vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 112923, May 5, 1997, 272 SCRA 172, 179 — Followed for the rule that factual findings of quasi-judicial agencies are generally respected but may be deviated from when misappreciation impairs the worker’s right to security of tenure.
• De Leon vs. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 70705, August 21, 1989, 176 SCRA 615, 621 — Followed for the rule that one year of intermittent service makes an employee regular with respect to the activity performed.
• Voyeur Visage Studio, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 144939, March 18, 2005, 453 SCRA 721, 729 — Followed for the twin requisites of valid dismissal: just cause and opportunity to be heard.
• Lakpue Drug, Inc. vs. Belga, G.R. No. 166379, October 20, 2005, 473 SCRA 617, 623 — Followed for the definition of misconduct as willful, grave, and not merely trivial.
• P.J. Lhuillier, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 158758, April 29, 2005, 457 SCRA 784, 799 — Followed for separation pay in lieu of reinstatement when reinstatement is no longer feasible.
• Mayon Hotel & Restaurant vs. Adana, G.R. No. 157634, May 16, 2005, 458 SCRA 609, 639 — Followed for moral damages where dismissal is attended with bad faith or contrary to good customs.
• Kay Products, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 162472, July 28, 2005, 464 SCRA 544, 559 — Followed for exemplary damages where dismissal is wanton, oppressive, or malevolent.
• Micro Sales Operation Network vs. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 155279, October 11, 2005, 472 SCRA 328, 331 — Followed for attorney’s fees equivalent to 10% of the total monetary award.

• Article 280, Labor Code — Regular and casual employment; applied to hold Alipio a regular employee after more than one year of intermittent service as a reliever nurse, whose activities were necessary or desirable in the hotel’s business.
• Article 282, Labor Code — Termination by employer; lists just causes including serious misconduct or willful disobedience; applied to reject the dismissal because Alipio’s act of obtaining copies of her payslips was not serious misconduct.
• Article 279, Labor Code — Security of tenure; applied to award reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges, full backwages, allowances, and other benefits or their monetary equivalent, or separation pay in lieu of reinstatement if no longer feasible.