MARIA DE LEON TRANSPORTATION INC v DANIEL MACURAY
G.R. No. 214940 | June 6, 2018
Del Castillo, J.
FACTS
- Mr. Daniel Macuray filed a complaint for illegal dismissal
against petitioner
- He claimed that he was employed as a bus driver of
petitioner
- He received a monthly pay/commission of P20,000
- In November 2009, petitioner’s dispatcher did not assign a
bus to him for no apparent reason
- For one month, he continuously returned to ask if there
was already an assignment
- And then the dispatcher informed him that he was already
considered AWOL, without giving any reason
- He went back afterwards, but nobody attended to him nor
gave him any explanation
- After serving for 18 years, he felt betrayed.
- He was 62 years old, but received no benefits for his service
- Thus, he prayed to be awarded backwages, separation pay,
retirement pay, 13th month pay, damages, attorney’s fees,
and costs of suit
- Petitioner’s defense:
o Claimed respondent was hired on commission basis
(“no work, no pay” and “per travel, per trip” basis)
o That he was paid average of P20k commission per
month without salary
o That Mr. Daniel actually abandoned his employment
and instead was driving his family truck
o That he didn’t approach management to inquire
about his employment status
o That he claims to be dismissed in January 2009, but
was contrary to documentary evidence showing he
continued to work until March 2009
LA ruling
- Rendered decision dismissing case for lack of merit
- Complainant cannot state with certainty the date and time
of his dismissal
- Witnesses had testified that they were aware Mr. Daniel
was poorly treated but records did not show that
complainant had shown any sign of protest
- Failed to present evidence that the treatment he received
was unreasonable or oppressive and unbearable that would
amount to a constructive dismissal
NLRC
- Resolution modifying LA’s judgment by awarding in favor
of respondent P50,000 as financial assistance
- Mere absence or failure to report for work is not
tantamount to abandonment of work
o Hence, claim of abandonment of work lacks factual
basis
- Complainant is pretty old, and he may not be apt to still
drive long hours from Laoag City to Manila
- Hence reinstatement is not possible
- Separation pay cannot be awarded either, because he
wasn’t dismissed
o In cases where there was no dismissal at all,
separation pay should not be awarded
CA
- CA found the illegal dismissal case meritorious
- He was no longer assigned any bus
- It was irrational for him to suddenly opt for an informal
voluntary termination, considering he’s near retirement
- As a regular employee who was constructively dismissed,
Daniel is entitled to separation pay
ISSUE
W/N Mr. Daniel was illegally dismissed
RATIO
- Court is inclined to believe petitioner’s allegations
 o Respondent left his work as bus driver to work for - Retirement benefits
his family’s trucking business o Respondent is entitled to them considering he was
- No truth to the allegation that respondent was dismissed, never dismissed from work, either for cause or by
actually or constructively resignation or abandonment
- Mere bus dispatcher does not possess the power to fire him o He merely went on a company-sanctioned sabbatical
- Respondent didn’t show that he met with management to o Just so happens that during his sabbatical, he
inquire on his status reached the retirement age of 60
- He hadn’t inquired because he found employment o He may have preempted the payment of his
elsewhere retirement benefits by filing the labor case, but it is a
- Failure to show that his follow-ups were properly directed clear demand for retirement benefits nonetheless
at management bolsters petitioner’s claim that there were - Article 287 of labor code on retirement
no follow-ups o Any employee may be retired upon reaching the
- Assuming that bus dispatcher really told him he was AWOL, retirement age established
this was not tantamount to dismissal o In case of retirement, he shall be entitled to receive
o Ordinary bus dispatcher has no power to dismiss an retirements benefits as may be agreed upon
employee - In the absence of a retirement plan or agreement with
o Bus drivers are even more valuable as a resource petitioner, the Court declares that respondent is entitled to
than dispatchers one month’s salary for every year of service
- However, it cannot be said that respondent abandoned his o P10,000 x 18 years = P180,000
employment - Retirement compensation equivalent to one month’s salary
o Petitioner admitted itself that it sanctioned the for every year of service is more equitable than CA’s
practice of allowing drivers to take breaks, to allow pronouncement of ½ month’s salary per year of service
them to recover from stresses and avoid fatal
accidents
- Respondent simply availed of petitioner company’s practice
and unwritten policy of allowing its bus drivers to take
needed breaks/sabbaticals and obtained work elsewhere
- Respondent had though that for serving the bus company
for a significant period, he should be rewarded for his
loyalty
- Since respondent was not dismissed from work, petitioner
cannot be held liable for respondent’s monetary claims,
except those that were actually owing to him by way of
unpaid salary, and retirement benefits which are due to him
for reason that he reached the age of retirement while
under the petitioner’s employ
- Unpaid salaries
o Three months worth wasn’t paid = P30,000