NORMA MABEZA, petitioner, vs.

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION,

PETER NG/HOTEL SUPREME, respondents. G.R. No. 118506. April 18, 1997

Facts: This is an appeal for the case of petitioner, Norma Mabeza against NLRC and Peter Ng of
Hotel Supreme. The petitioner was hired as chambermaid by Hotel Supreme in Baguio City. In
1991, an inspection was made by the DOLE at Hotel Supreme which gave an adverse feedback to
the hotel management. To counter such act, the owner, Peter Ng, immediately directed his
employees to execute an affidavit which would purport that they have no complaints against Hotel
Supreme. Mabeza signed the affidavit but refused to certify it in the City Prosecutor's Office. After
such incident, petitioner avers that she was ordered leave and to remove her belongings from the
hotel premises. She filed a leave of absence which was denied by the employer. Upon attempt to
return to work on May 10, 1991, the hotel's cashier, Margarita Choy, informed her that she should
not report to work. Mabeza then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. In addition to her complaint,
she alleged underpayment of wages, non-payment of holiday pay, service incentive leave pay, 13th
month pay, night differential and other benefits. To counter the claim, Peter Ng filed a qualified
theft case against respondent only on July 4, 1991.He then argued that such dismissal was justified
due to loss of confidence against the worker as she allegedly stole things from the hotel. Further,
respondent justifies that the below minimum wage earnings of the respondent was due to the fact
that she is given facility where she is able to have free lodging, water, electricity and other
consumptions. Labor Artbiter and NLRC decided in favor of the respondent. Hence, the appeal to
the Supreme Court.

Issue: 1. Whether or not the employer is guilty of unfair labor practice and illegal dismissal,
thereby giving the petitioner the right to claim backwages, separation pay and other legal claims.

2. Whether or not such facilities provided by the hotel are deductible from Mabeza’s wage,
thereby justifying the below minimum wage salary of the petitioner?
 
Ruling:
1. Yes, the respondent is guilty of unfair labor pratice and illegal dismissal. NLRC decision is
reversed and set aside. The act of compelling employees to sign an instrument indicating that the
employer observed labor standards provisions of law when he might have not, together with the act
of terminating or coercing those who refuse to cooperate with the employer's scheme constitutes
unfair labor practice. Article 248 of the Labor Code states that it is"an unfair labor practice" to
dismiss, discharge or otherwise prejudice or discriminate against an employee for having given or
being about to give testimony". Regarding the issue of theft and lack of confidence, it should be
noted that the filing of crime of theft was done almost two months after the labor case started. Loss
of confdence as a just cause for dismissal was never intended to provide employers with a blank
check for terminating their employees. It should only apply to cases involving employees occupying
positions to trust and confdence or to those situations where the employee is routinely charged with
the care of money. An ordinary chambermaid who has to sign out for linen and other hotel property
from the property custodian each day and who has to account for each and every towel or bedsheet
would not fall under any of these two classes of employees.
2. No, facilities as claimed in this case, is not deductible to the wage of petitioner. Granting that
meals and lodging were provided and indeed constituted facilities, such facilities could not be
deducted without the employer complying first with certain legal requirements. First, proof must be
shown that such facilities are customarily furnished by the trade. Second, the provision of
deductible facilities must be voluntarily accepted in writing by the employee. Finally, facilities must
be charged at fair and reasonable value. These requirements were not met in the instant case.
Further, burden of proof lies with the respondent. Respondent lacked substantial evidence to back
his claims. Hence, petitioner's prayer is thereby upheld—giving her access to backwages, payment
of deficiency wages, separation pay and other legal claims.