Case Digest: WAH YUEN RESTAURANT v. JAYONA

WAH YUEN RESTAURANT v. PRIMO JAYONA

477 SCRA 666 (2005)

Consistent with the due process requirement, the employer shall give he employee two notices

Primo Jayona, hired as Assistant Manager of Wah Yuen Restaurant, filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against Wah Yuen. He was dismissed on the allegedly grounds of grave dishonesty and loss of confidence, for having twice billed a customer an amount considerably less than the actual order.

The Labor Arbiter dismissed Jayona’s complaint on the ground that as an assistant manager, he works for as long as he enjoys the trust and confidence of his employer, but once the trust and confidence are lost, his employment is deemed terminated. On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the dismissal stating as a managerial employee, Jayona need not be subjected to the rigorous process of the twin notice requirement, more so that the act he was accused of and on which he offered no plausible defense is deleterious to the interests of Wah Yuen.

The Court of Appeals reversed and set aside the NLRC Resolution stating that the right of an employer to dismiss employees on account of loss of trust and confidence must not be exercised arbitrarily. The twin requirements of notice and hearing constitute essential elements of the statutory process, and neither of these elements can be eliminated without running afoul of the procedural mandate.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Jayona was properly dismissed from work

HELD:

In the case at bar, Wah Yuen, which has the onus of proving that the dismissal of Jayona on account of loss of confidence arose from particular facts, failed to discharge the same.

Procedural due process requires the employer to give the employee two notices. The first is to apprise him of the particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought, and the second is to inform him of the decision to terminate him.

Failure to comply with these mandatory procedural requirements taints the dismissal with illegality and any judgment rendered by the employer without compliance therewith can be considered void and inexistent.

For Wah Yuen to consider the letter-memorandum of January 5, 2000 as the first notice, and the letter of April 5, 2000 as the second notice of termination of employment is erroneous. For albeit the two letters dealt with infractions of the same nature, they were separate and distinct.

The April 5, 2000 termination letter itself clearly stated that Jayona was being terminated for committing a second infraction. As such he should have been given the chance to give his side thereon. But he was not.

In any event, not only did Wah Yuen fail to observe the due process requirements. It also failed to establish by substantial evidence that the alleged second infraction was committed.

Loss of confidence then, which is the usual ground for the removal of a managerial employee, not having been established, like any other lawful cause, the petition must fail.