manila pavillion hotel v delada
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/12/2019 Manila Pavillion Hotel v Delada
1/3
Manila Pavillion Hotel v. Henry Delada
G.R. No. 189947 January 25, 2012
Sereno, J.
Facts: Respondent Henry Delada (Delada) was an employee of petitioner Manila Pavillion Hotel (Hotel).
He was originally assigned as Head Waiter of Rotisserie, a fine-dining restaurant operated by the Hotel.
Pursuant to a supervisory personnel reorganization program, Delada was reassigned as Head Waiter of
Seasons Coffee Shop, another restaurant operated by the Hotel in the same establishment. Delada
declined the transfer and instead asked for a grievance meeting on the matter, pursuant to their
Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). He also requested his retention as Head Waiter of Rotisserie
while the grievance procedure was ongoing.
The Hotel ordered Delada to report to his new assignment for the time being, without prejudice to the
resolution of the grievance involving the transfer. However, Delada adamantly refused despite a number
of notices from the hotel requiring him to explain in writing why he should not be penalized for serious
misconduct, wilful disobedience of the lawful orders of the employer, gross insubordination; gross and
habitual neglect of duties, and wilful breach of trust. According to Delada, since the grievance machinery
under their CBA had already been initiated, his transfer must be held in abeyance.
After several failed attempts to reach a settlement, Delada lodged a complaint before the National
Conciliation and Mediation Board. The parties then agreed to submit to voluntary arbitration. While the
arbitration case was pending before the Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators (Panel), the Hotel continued with
the disciplinary action against Delada for the latters refusal to obey the transferorder, in accordance
with its own company policies. The Hotel also placed Delada on a 30-day preventive suspension, for
security and safety reasons; to prevent the possibility of Delada sabotaging the food to be prepared and
served to the Hotels dining guest and employees because of the hostile relationship then existing
between them. The Hotel found Delada guilty of insubordination based on his repeated and wilful
disobedience of the transfer order, and imposed the penalty of 90-days suspension. Delada opposed the
Decision, arguing that the Hotel lost its authority to proceed with the disciplinary action against him,
since the matter had already been included in the voluntary arbitration.
Thereafter, the Panel then issued a decision. It ruled that the transfer order to Delada was a valid
exercise of the Hotels management prerogative; that the transfer order was done without malice or
bad faith in the interest of the efficient and economic operations of the Hotel. The Panel also ruled that
there was no legal and factual basis to support the Hotels imposition of the 30-day preventive
suspension on Delada. It also found that the Hotel went beyond the 30-day limit on preventive
suspension prescribed by the Implementing Rules of the Labor Code when the Hotel proceeded to
impose a separate penalty of 90-day suspension on Delada. Furthermore, the Panel ruled that the Hotel
relinquished its authority to continue with the administrative proceedings for insubordination and wilful
disobedience of the transfer order and to impose the penalty of 90-day suspension, since the Panel
-
8/12/2019 Manila Pavillion Hotel v Delada
2/3
acquired exclusive jurisdiction over the issue when the parties submitted the aforementioned issues
before it. The Panel reasoned that the joint submission to it of the issue on the validity of the transfer
order encompassed, by necessary implication, the issue of respondents insubordination and wilful
disobedience of the transfer order.
Issue # 1: Whether or not the Voluntary Arbitratorsruling is limited to the specific issues brought beforeit and cannot assume jurisdiction over related issues not raised in the arbitration.
Held: NO. Voluntary Arbitrators has plenary jurisdiction and authority to interpret the agreement to
arbitrate and to determine the scope of his own authority subject only, in a proper case, to the
certiorari jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Voluntary arbitrators are generally expected to decide only
those questions expressly delineated by the submission agreement. Nevertheless, they can assume that
they have the necessary power to make a final settlement on the related issues, since arbitration is the
final resort for the adjudication of disputes. The failure of the parties to specifically limit the issues to
that which was stated authorizes the arbitrator to assume jurisdiction over related issues. Therefore, the
Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators is authorized to assume jurisdiction over the related issue of
insubordination and wilful disobedience of the transfer order, even though the issue that was raised was
the validity of the transfer order.
Issue # 2: Whether or not the Hotel lost its authority to continue with the administrative proceedings for
insubordination and wilful disobedience against Delada and to impose on him the penalty of suspension.
Held: NO. The Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators did not make a definitive ruling on the merits of the validity
of the 90-day suspension. It merely stated that its disagreement with the 90-day penalty of suspension
stemmed from the fact that the penalty went beyond the 30-day limit for preventive suspension. In
other words, the ruling of the Panel merely declared that it acquired jurisdiction not only over the
issue submitted in the arbitration (validity of the transfer order) but also over the related issue ofinsubordination and wilful disobedience in non-compliance with the transfer order, without
discussing the merits of such related issue. In order for the Voluntary Arbitrator to acquire jurisdiction
over issues not submitted for arbitration but are related to those issues stated in the submission
agreement, it should make a definitive ruling on the merits of such related issues. For the Voluntary
Arbitrator to assume jurisdiction over the issue of insubordination and wilful disobedience, it must make
a definitive ruling on that issue. Having failed to do so, it cannot be taken that the hotel relinquished its
authority to impose disciplinary action to Delada, since the Voluntary Arbitrator did not acquire
jurisdiction over the issue of insubordination and wilful disobedience.
Issue # 3: WON the Hotel violated the 30-day period prescribed by the Implementing Rules of the LaborCode for preventive suspension by imposing the 90-day suspension penalty on Delada
Held: NO. The basis of the 30-day preventive suspension imposed on Delada was different from that of
the 90-day penalty of suspension. The 30-day preventive suspension was imposed by MPH on the
assertion that Delada might sabotage hotel operations if preventive suspension would not be imposed
on him. On the other hand, the penalty of 90-day suspension was imposed on Delada as a form of
disciplinary action. Preventive suspension is a disciplinary measure resorted to by the employer pending
-
8/12/2019 Manila Pavillion Hotel v Delada
3/3
investigation of an alleged malfeasance or misfeasance committed by an employee. On the other hand,
the penalty of suspension refers to the disciplinary action imposed on the employee after an official
investigation or administrative hearing is conducted. Hence, a finding of validity of the penalty of 90-day
suspension will not embrace the issue of the validity of the 30-day preventive suspension.
Issue # 4: WON Delada is entitled to back wages and other benefits for the period corresponding to the
penalty of 90-day suspension.
Held: NO. Employees may object to, negotiate and seek redress against employers for rules or orders
that they regard as unjust or illegal. However, until and unless these rules or orders are declared illegal
or improper by competent authority, the employees ignore or disobey them at their peril. The transfer
order issued by the Hotel was a valid exercise of its management prerogative. While it is true that
Deladas transfer is the subject of the grievance machinery in accordance with the provisions of their
CBA, he is expected to comply first with the said lawful directive while awaiting the results of the
decision in the grievance proceedings. He cannot hide under the legal cloak of the grievance machinery
of the CBA or the voluntary arbitration proceedings to disobey a valid order of transfer from the
management of the hotel.