Sie sind auf Seite 1von 1

CASE NO.

H-65:

G.R. No. 103209

July 28, 1997

APOLONIO BONDOC and GENUINE LABOR ORGANIZATION OF WORKERS in HOTEL, RESTAURANT


AND ALLIED INDUSTRIES (GLOWHRAIN)Silahis International Chapter, petitioners,
vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and SILAHIS INTERNATIONAL HOTEL, INC.,
respondents.
FACTS:
On four separate occasions from August 20, 1990 to August 23, 1990, headwaiter Bondoc accosted his
female co-worker Vima Villanueva and threatened her with bodily harm, aside from hurling at her
slanderous statements and invectives, thus subjecting her to harassments and vexations. Valenzuela
became the object of Bondocs ire after she reported to her assistant managers an incident regarding the
supposedly unauthorized bringing of food by a waiter to the union office where Bondoc was then waiting.
Valenzuela reported the threats to the police, and the series of incidents to the hotel management.
On September 3, 1990, a notice was issued to Bondoc directing him to explain in writing why no
disciplinary action should be taken against him for having violated hotel rules on Peace & Order. On
September 6, 1990, the hotel management preventively suspended Bondoc. Another memo was issued on
October 4, 1990 effectively terminating Bondocs employment effective October 6, 1990. Legitimate labor
organization GLOWHRAIN filed a notice of strike against the hotel for alleged harassment, arbitrary transfer
and illegal suspension and termination of Bondoc.
Upon certification of the dispute to the NLRC, Bondocs dismissal was declared as valid and legal.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Bondoc was illegally dismissed.
HELD:
No. The Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, Section 1, states that, no worker shall be
dismissed except for a just cause provided by law and after due process.
The memo issued on September 3, 1990 did not state with particularity the acts and omissions for which
Bondoc is being charged. Similarly, the memo issued on October 4, 1990 did not clearly cite the reason for
Bondocs dismissal. Evidently, the hotel management effectively failed to give the required notices.
The hotel management also appeared to have rendered its judgment of dismissal without affording Bondoc
the opportunity to be heard personally. It banned Bondoc from entering the hotel premises pending
resolution of the case on the same date the latter was preventively suspended.
Bondoc, however, did not deny having uttered statements in the form of threats or coercion. He violated the
hotels General Company Rules. An employer cannot be compelled to continue with the employment of
workers guilty of acts of misfeasance or malfeasance, and whose continuance in the service of the
employer is clearly inimical to the its interest, and that the law, in protecting the rights of workers authorizes
neither the oppression nor self-destruction of employer.
Bondocs dismissal, being based on just cause, is in order. Nevertheless, he is entitled to indemnity for
violation of his right to due process.