LABOR Employer-employee Relationship; Illegal Dismissal

STANDARDS
Title: HSY Marketing v. Villastique
HSY Marketing Ltd., Co., petitioner
GR No. 219569
Date: August 17, 2016
Ponente: Perlas-Bernabe, J.
Virgilio O. Villastique, respondents

NATURE OF THE CASE: Illegal dismissal with money claims

FACTS
Petitioner hired respondent as field driver for Fabulous Jeans & Shirt & General Merchandise (Fabulous
Jeans), tasked to deliver RTW items and/or general merchandise for a daily compensation. Respondent
figured in an accident when the service vehicle he was driving bumped a pedestrian. Fabulous Jeans
shouldered the hospitalization and medical expenses of the victim, which respondent was asked to
reimburse, but to no avail. Respondent was allegedly required to sign a resignation letter, but he refused to
do so. His salary was then withheld for his refusal to sign. He then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal
with money claims.

Petitioner contended that respondent had committed several violations during his employment and had been
found by his superior and co-workers to be negligent and reckless driver. After the unfortunate incident,
respondent went on absence without leave. Since respondent refused to go to work, he was considered
having voluntarily severed his employment, and thus, money claims cannot prosper.
ISSUE/S
I. WON there existed an employer-employee relationship.
II. WON respondent voluntarily resign from work and petitioner did not dismiss him from
employment, and consequently awarded him separation pay.
RULING
I. YES. The issue is essentially a question of fact. It is settled that the Court is not a trier of facts.
The Court found no reason to look into factual findings. The LA, NLRC and CA consistently
found petitioner as liable as employer, the Court sees no compelling reason to depart from such
judgment,
II. No. No substantial evidence was presented to show that respondent was illegally dismissed. In
the absence of showing of an overt or positive act proving petitioner had dismissed respondent,
the latter’s claims cannot be sustained, as such opposition would be self-serving, conjectural,
and of no probative value. Similarly, petitioner’s claims of respondent’s voluntary resignation
and/or abandonment cannot be given merit, considering petitioner’s failure to discharge the
burden of proving the deliberate and unjustified refusal of respondent to resume employment
without intention of returning. Hence, there is no dismissal or abandonment to speak of, the
appropriate course of action is to reinstate the employee, without backwages. The Court agrees
with petitioner that the lower courts erred in awarding separation pay, that the liability for the
payment of separation pay is but a legal consequence of illegal dismissal where reinstatement is
no longer viable or feasible. Since there was no dismissal, no separation pay must be awarded.