G.R. NO. 159448 - WAH YUEN RESTAURANT, VS. PRIMO JAYONA.

Ruling

accordingly disposed: WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, the Petition having merit in fact and in law, is hereby GIVEN DUE COURSE. Accordingly, the decision of the Labor Arbiter dismissing the Petitioner's Complaint and the Resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission dismissing Petitioner's appeal are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and Petitioner declared to have been illegally dismissed. Resultantly, the records of this case are REMANDED to the Labor Arbiter, thru the Public Respondent NLRC, for the Labor Arbiter to determine whether Petitioner may be reinstated, and if not, to determine the amount of separation pay plus back wages and the other benefits Petitioner is entitled to under Articles 91 or 93 of the Labor Standards Law. No costs. (Underscoring supplied) [7] Hence, the present petition for review, petitioner faulting the appellate court in decid[ing] a question of substance not in accord with law and applicable decisions of the Honorable Supreme Court, when it reversed the factual findings of the Labor Arbiter, as affirmed by the NLRC, holding that respondent's dismissal was illegal. [8] Petitioner harps on the "unwarranted stress on respondent's rather self-serving claim that he was granted a salary increase barely two (2) weeks after he committed his first infraction." Thus petitioner argues: x x x FIRST. Other than respondent's self-serving claim, no proof was ever presented to show that indeed it was only on January 5, 2000 (should have been January 15) that respondent's salary rate of P9,450.00 took effect. Besides, an increase in the salary of an erring employee does not necessarily indicate that said employee never committed the infraction only for the first time prior to the alleged increase in his salary. Further, the supposed increase, if indeed one was given, may have been granted after the respondent promised not to repeat the same infraction in the future. SECOND . The record would likewise show that respondent has not satisfactorily disproved the fact that indeed he committed the questioned infractions . THIRD . As already stated earlier, respondent's infractions were proven and established by witnesses who submitted sworn statements before the Labor Arbiter. [9] (Underscoring in the original; emphasis supplied). Petitioner further argues that contrary to the findings of the appellate court, it substantially complied with the twin notice requirement, for the April 3, 2000 incident was respondent's second infraction and he had been priorly warned, in the letter-memorandum of January 5, 2000, that a repetition of the same offense would be a cause for the termination of his services. That respondent was a managerial employee and that the ground for the termination of his employment was loss of confidence under Article 282 (c) of the Labor Code [10] are undisputed. Due to its subjective nature which makes it prone to abuse, however, this Court has set guidelines to be followed if the ground for termination of