Dionella Gopio vs.

Salvador Bautista
G.R. No. 205953; June 6, 2018
Jardeleza., J.
FACTS:
This is a petition for review on Certiorari seeking the reversal of the decision of the CA in
which annulled the decision issued by the NLRC and reinstated the decision rendered by the Labor
Arbiter denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration.
Salvador Bautista (Bautista) was hired as a Project Manager for Shorncliffe in Papua New Guinea
through Job Asia, a single proprietorship owned by petitioner Dionella Gopio, which deploys
manpower for overseas work. Even before the expiration of his employment contract, Bautista was
notified that his services will be terminated due to unsatisfactory performance and failure to meet
the company’s standards.
Bautista filed a complaint with the NLRC against petitioners for illegal dismissal. He
claimed that he was dismissed without just cause since there had been no job evaluation
conducted prior to Shorncliffe's decision to dismiss him from employment and that he was deprived
of due process. Petitioners, on the other hand, allege that there was just cause as Bautista
performed below the company’s standards and that this cause falls under “other grounds” of
termination in the employment contract. As to the due process requirement, Shorncliffe claimed
that Article 4.3 of the employment contract provides that a one-month salary may be given in lieu
of the one month written notice.
ISSUE:
Was Bautista’s employment validly terminated even without notice as he was already given
the equivalent of one-month salary in lieu thereof, as provided in Article 4.3 of the employment
contract?
RULING:
No. Bautista’s employment was not validly terminated when it was made without notice.
The employer is bound to adduce clear, accurate, consistent, and convincing evidence to
prove that the dismissal is valid and legal. This is consistent with the principle of security of tenure
as guaranteed by the Constitution and reinforced by Article 292(b) of the Labor Code of the
Philippines. Furthermore, the Labor Code requires both notice and hearing; notice alone will not
suffice.
In this case, Bautista was not given a chance to defend himself since five days after the
notice was served, he was repatriated. Furthermore, Article 4.3 of the employment contract
violates the provisions of the Labor Code on security of tenure since it gives the employer the
option to do away with the notice requirement as long as he grants one-month salary to the
employee. The provision deprives the employee of due process and violates his right to be
apprised of the grounds for his termination without giving him an opportunity to defend himself.
Moreover, the term "other grounds" is all-encompassing. It makes the employee susceptible to
arbitrary dismissal. The employee may be terminated not only for just or authorized causes but
also for anything under the sun that may suit his employer.
Hence, Bautista was illegally dismissed.
| 97COVERED CASES (JULY 01, 2017 TO JUNE 30, 2018)
ON LABOR LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION
WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE OF COMPANY’S ORDER IS A VALID GROUND FOR
DISMISSAL
Marlon L. Arcilla, vs. Zulisibs, Inc., Piandre Salon, and Rosalinda Francisco
G.R. No. 225125; June 6, 2018
Carpio, J.
FACTS:
This is a petition for review assailing the CA’s and NLRC’s decision finding petitioner
Marlon Arcilla (Arcilla)’s dismissal valid and for just cause.
Respondent Zulisibs, Inc. (Zulisibs) operates respondent Piandre Salon (Piandre), an
establishment engaged in the operation of beauty salons. In 2000, petitioner Arcilla was hired by
Piandre and was assigned to the Alabang, Muntinlupa Branch. His wife was also hired and was
assigned to Salcedo Village, Makati City branch. After some time, both were promoted as senior
hair stylists. Sometime in 2014, respondent Zulisibs received an information that Arcilla was
establishing a beauty salon. Subsequently, Arcilla was placed under preventive suspension. Upon
investigation, it was found and admitted by Arcilla that he extended help to the salon owner who
happens to be his brother-in-law. In September 2014, Arcilla’s employment was terminated due to
loss of trust.
Subsequently, Arcilla filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. He claimed that his dismissal
was invalid and not for just cause. On the other hand, respondents alleged that Arcilla committed
serious misconduct or willful disobedience of the company’s lawful orders, and of fraud or willful
breach of trust reposed in him by the company. They claimed that these justified Arcilla’s dismissal.
The LA dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. On appeal, NLRC affirmed the LA Decision. On
appeal, the CA upheld the validity of Arcilla’s dismissal.
ISSUE:
Was Arcilla’s involvement in the establishment of another beauty salon a valid cause for
dismissal?
RULING:
Yes, Arcilla’s involvement in setting up a competing beauty salon was a valid cause for his
dismissal.
Article 297 (a) and (c) of the Labor Code provides for termination by employer on the
ground of: “Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his
employer or representative in connection with his work,” and “Fraud and willful breach by the
employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized representative.”
In the present case, it was stated in their agreement that petitioner is prohibited from setting
up or being involved in a business similar to that of private respondents’ during the course of their
employment. As private respondents' trusted Senior Hairstylist for quite several years, it is
incumbent upon him to have read and understood its provisions and be fully aware of the
prohibitions and penalties imposed upon erring employees. The important fact remains that Arcilla
made an admission that he gave funds to his brother-in-law for the new salon in Alabang which
directly competes with the business of his employer. It is not disputed that the new beauty salon
is located less than a kilometer away from Piandre Salon in Alabang. His involvement in setting up
a competing salon, which albeit indirect, constitutes serious misconduct because of his blatant
disregard of the terms and conditions of his contract/agreement with the private respondents.
Hence, Arcilla was validly dismissed.
98 | COVERED CASES (JULY 01, 2017 TO JUNE 30, 2018)
ON LABOR LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION
PENALTIES IMPOSED MUST BE COMMESURATE TO THE EMPLOYEE’S
INFRACTIONS
Nicanor F. Malcaba, Christian C. Nepomuceno, And Laura Mae Fatima F. Palit-Ang vs.
ProHealth Pharma Philippines, Inc., et al.
G.R. No. 209085; June 6, 2018
Leonen, J.
FACTS:
This is a petition for review on Certiorari assailing the CA decision which reversed the
NLRC and the Labor Arbiter’s ruling and held that petitioners Christian Nepomuceno
(Nepomuceno) and Laura Palit-Ang (Palit-Ang) were validly dismissed from service for loss of trust
and confidence, and insubordination, respectively.
ProHealth Pharma Philippines, Inc. (ProHealth) is a corporation engaged in the sale of
pharmaceutical products and health food on a wholesale and retail basis. Nepomuceno and Palit
Ang were employed as its Business Manager and Finance Officer, respectively.
For Nepomuceno’s part, in 2008, he applied for a vacation leave for April 24, 25 and 28,
which was duly approved. When he left on April 23, ProHealth asked him to explain his absence.
He replied through an email that he tried to inform them that his flight was on April 22, not on April
23, but he was unable to connect on the phone. On May 7, Nepomuceno was given notice of
termination on the ground of fraud and willful breach of trust. For Palit-Ang’s part, she was given
an instruction to release cash advance, however, she was not able to do so. Dissatisfied with her
explanation, she was handed a notice of termination for disobeying the order of ProHealth’s highest
official.
Aggrieved, Nepomuceno and Palit-Ang filed separate illegal dismissal complaints.
Respondents argued that they were justified in dismissing Nepomuceno and Palit-Ang because
(1) Nepomuceno’s abandonment of his duties at critical sales period was a ground for them to lose
their trust and confidence; and (2) Palit-Ang defied the lawful instructions of their officials and
illustrated her grave disrespect towards authorities.
ISSUE:
Was the termination of the petitioner’s employment commensurate to their alleged
infractions?
RULING:
No, the cited petitioners’ acts were not sufficient to terminate their employment.
In all cases of employment termination, the employee must be granted due process. The
manner by which this is accomplished is stated in Book V, Rule XXIII, Section 2 of the Rules
Implementing the Labor Code. While an employer is free to regulate all aspects of employment,
the exercise of management prerogatives must be in good faith and must not defeat or circumvent
the rights of its employees. While the inherent right of employers to discipline their employees is
recognized, the penalties imposed must be commensurate to the infractions committed. Dismissal
of employees for minor and negligible offenses may be considered as illegal dismissal.
In the present case, both Nepomuceno and Palit-Ang’s termination were not
commensurate to the infractions attributed to them. As to Nepomuceno’s alleged infraction,
respondent did not suffer any financial damage as a result of his absence. On the other hand, as
to Palit-Ang’s alleged infraction, her failure to immediately release the requested money was not
a result of a perverse mental attitude but was merely because of heavy workload.
Hence, the penalty of dismissal for both of them was not commensurate to their infractions.
| 99COVERED CASES (JULY 01, 2017 TO JUNE 30, 2018)
ON LABOR LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION
CONSTRUCTIVE DISMISSAL EXISTS WHEN AN EMPLOYEE IS LEFT WITH NO
CHOICE
BUT TO FOREGO CONTINUED EMPLOYMENT
John L. Borja and Aubrey L. Borja vs. Randy B. Miñoza and Alaine S. Bandalan
G.R. No. 218384; July 3, 2017
Perlas-Bernabe, J.
FACTS:
In this petition for review on Certiorari, petitioners John L. Borja and Aubrey L. Borja assails
the resolution rendered by the CA, which set aside the decision of the NLRC and reinstated the
ruling of the Labor Arbiter (LA) finding respondents Randy B. Miñoza (Miñoza) and Alain S.
Bandalan (Bandalan) to have been constructively dismissed.
Respondents were employed as cooks for a restaurant operated by petitioners. The
company implements a “double-absent” policy, which considers an employee absent for two (2)
days without pay if he incurs an absence on a Friday, Saturday, or Sunday. Because of such policy,
Miñoza and Bandalan absented themselves on a Saturday and Sunday, respectively, since they
both were not able to report to work the day prior and will not be receiving pay anyway. Petitioners
dismissed them from employment after their failure to explain their absence.
Respondents alleged that they reported for work but were barred from entering the
restaurant. Instead they were forced to receive separate memoranda, during a special meeting,
asking them to justify their unexplained absences. Thereat, they alleged that a certain Mark Opura
(Opura), the person called by petitioners to keep the other employees from being harassed,
created a hostile work environment and threatened them to leave employment. Out of fear,
respondents no longer reported for work the following day, and instead filed a complaint for illegal
dismissal. In defense, petitioners explained that the “double-absent” policy was proposed by the
employees and that Opura was called on to maintain order in the restaurant and to keep watch.
ISSUE:
Did the petitioners create a hostile working environment leaving respondents without any
choice but to relinquish their employment?
RULING:
No, the petitioners did not leave respondents without any choice but to relinquish
employment.
As provided in Soliman Security Services, Inc. v. CA, constructive dismissal exists when
an act of clear discrimination, insensibility, or disdain on the part of the employer has become so
unbearable as to leave an employee with no choice but to forego continued employment, or when
there is cessation of work because continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable,
or unlikely, as an offer involving a demotion in rank and a diminution in pay. The test of constructive
dismissal is whether a reasonable person in the employee's position would have felt compelled to
give up his job under the circumstances.
Petitioners were validly exercising their management prerogative when they called
meetings to investigate respondents' absences and gave them separate memoranda seeking
explanation therefor. Respondents failed to prove that Opura's presence created a hostile work
environment, or that the latter threatened and intimidated them so much as to convince them to
leave their employment.
Therefore, despite their allegations, respondents failed to prove through substantial
evidence that they were discriminated against, or that working at the restaurant had become so
unbearable that they were left without any choice but to relinquish their employment.
100 | COVERED CASES (JULY 01, 2017 TO JUNE 30, 2018)
ON LABOR LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION
NOTHING IS REPREHENSIBLE OR ILLEGAL WHEN AN EMPLOYER GRANTS AN
EMPLOYEE A CHANCE TO RESIGN AND SAVE FACE RATHER THAN SMEAR THE
LATTER’S EMPLOYMENT RECORD
Edward M. Couse vs. Ferritz Integrated Development Corporation
G.R. No. 230664; July 24, 2017
Tijam, J.
FACTS:
This is a petition for review assailing the decision of the CA affirming the resolution of the
NLRC upholding the Labor Arbiter’s finding that petitioner Edward M. Cosue was not illegally
dismissed.
Petitioner filed a complaint against respondent Ferritz Integrated Development Corporation
for illegal dismissal. He started working for the respondent as a construction worker and later
performed the work as a janitor staff. Melissa Tanya Germino (Germino), head of the respondent
company asked petitioner to stay in the building to watch over the generator due to the frequent
power outage and to assist the newly hired guards. The wires got stolen during the watch of the
petitioner. Because of this, he was summoned by Germino who verbally informed him that he was
suspended on suspicion that he stole the electrical wires.
Petitioner maintained that he was constructively dismissed because he reported to work
immediately after his suspension he was not anymore allowed to work. He argued that mere
absence or failure to report is not tantamount to abandonment of work. On the other hand,
respondent argued that there was no illegal dismissal as there was an agreement between
respondent and petitioner that the latter would just resign. However, petitioner did not file his
resignation, and eventually instituted his Complaint for illegal dismissal.
ISSUE:
Was the petitioner constructively dismissed when the respondent gave him a graceful
dismissal?
RULING:
No, the petitioner was not constructively dismissed when the respondent gave him a
graceful exit. Respondents' decision to give petitioner a graceful exit is perfectly within their
discretion.
As provided in Central Azucarera de.Bais, Inc. v. Siason, there is nothing reprehensible or
illegal when the employer grants the employee a chance to resign and save face rather than smear
the latter's employment record. Petitioner's claim of constructive dismissal fails. Bare allegations
of constructive dismissal, when uncorroborated by the evidence on record, as in this case, cannot
be given credence.
In this case, records do not show any demotion in rank or a diminution in pay made against
petitioner. Neither was there any act of clear discrimination, insensibility or disdain committed by
respondents against petitioner which would justify or force him to terminate his employment from
the company.
Therefore, the petitioner was not constructively dismissed by the respondent.
| 101COVERED CASES (JULY 01, 2017 TO JUNE 30, 2018)
ON LABOR LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION
TO ESTABLISH DEFENSE OF VOLUNTARY RESIGNATION, BURDEN OF PROOF
RESTS
ON THE EMPLOYER
FCA Security and General Services, Inc. vs. Sotero M. Academia, Jr. II
G.R. No. 189493; August 2, 2017
Bersamin, J.
FACTS:
This is a petition of review on Certiorari by petitioner FCA Security and General Services,
Inc. (FCA) assailing the decision of the CA reinstating the decision of the LA finding petitioner liable
for the illegally dismissal of respondent Sotero M. Academia, Jr.
Respondent was hired as a security guard by FCA. While he was assigned in an RCBC
branch, he had an altercation with a driver of Dunking Donuts, wherein respondent drew and
pointed his service firearm at the driver. FCA issued an inter-office memo relieving the respondent
from his post at the RCBC branch and directing him to report to the head office for instruction and
proper disposition.
FCA asserts that respondent had offered to voluntarily resign from the FCA. Such claim
was attested to by several employees of FCA. FCA also submits the results of the investigation of
the incident, which was signed by the respondent. Respondent on the other hand, submits that the
employees which substantiated and corroborated his verbal resignation were not just employees
of FCA but were its officers whose testimonies served their own best interest.
ISSUE:
Was the respondent’s voluntary resignation sufficiently established?
RULING:
Yes, respondent’s voluntary resignation was sufficiently established.
As provided in Grande v. Philippine Nautical Training College, in an illegal dismissal case,
the employer whose defense is the voluntary resignation of the employee must prove by clear,
positive and convincing evidence that the resignation was voluntary.
Petitioners submitted the results of the investigation of the respondent. The results
included the hand-written explanation on the incident at the RCBC branch as well as the
typewritten statement in question-and-answer form, both executed and signed by the respondent
himself. In addition, the fact alone that the corroborating employees were officers of FCA did not
discredit their confirmation of the verbal resignation of the respondent. The relationship of
employment between the witnesses and one of the parties, although a factor to weigh the value of
the testimony, is not of itself sufficient to discredit the testimony.
As the foregoing disquisition indicates, FCA fully discharged their burden of proof.
102 | COVERED CASES (JULY 01, 2017 TO JUNE 30, 2018)
ON LABOR LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION
RESIGNATION CONTRADICTS CLAIM OF ILLEGAL DISMISSAL
Alicia M.L. Coseteng and Diliman Preparatory School vs. Leticia P. Perez
G.R. No. 185938; September 6, 2017
Reyes, Jr., J.
FACTS:
In this petition for review on Certiorari, petitioners Diliman Preparatory School (School) and
its former president, Alicia M.L. Coseteng, challenge the decisions of the CA and NLRC which
reversed the LA ruling that respondent Leticia P. Perez (Perez) voluntarily resigned and was not
constructively dismissed.
The School hired Perez as a teacher for its elementary students. During her service, Perez
was suspended twice for separate incidents involving negligence. First, several students reported
that she collected payment for subscription to Saranggola magazine, but for which they did not
receive their copies. Second, she admitted to allowing a student to cheat during the quarterly exas.
After serving suspension, she was informed that she would be temporarily re-assigned. Instead of
coming back to work, she tendered her resignation via a handwritten letter. Despite receiving
amounts under the School’s retirement program, she filed a complaint for constructive dismissal.
To support her claim of constructive dismissal, Perez claimed that she opted to resign from
work because she was being demoted to a floating status. Petitioners denied that Perez was
constructively dismissed from employment because her resignation was a free and voluntary act
on her part. They also refuted that Perez was demoted since her reassignment was due to a
legitimate concern, that is, the school year would have begun by the time Perez has served out
her suspension; she wouldn't be able to handle any class immediately at the beginning of a school
year.
ISSUE:
Did petitioner voluntarily resign so as to negate the claim of constructive dismissal?
RULING:
Yes, petitioner voluntarily resigned and was not constructively dismissed.
As provided in Divine Word College v. Mina, there is constructive dismissal when there is cessation
of work, because continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely, as an
offer involving a demotion in rank or a diminution in pay and other benefits. It exists when there is
clear act of discrimination, insensibility or disdain by an employer which becomes unbearable for
the employee to continue his employment. Resignation, being voluntary, contradicts a claim of
illegal dismissal. Thus, when an employee tenders resignation, he or she has the burden of proving
that the resignation was not voluntary but was actually a case of constructive dismissal; that it is a
product of coercion or intimidation.
The School was able to satisfactorily explain that Perez was merely reassigned and not
demoted. While Perez has enjoyed her position of having a regular teaching load and advisory
class for years, and may have to adjust to her temporary assignment, it is a recognized rule that
not every inconvenience, disruption, difficulty, or disadvantage that an employee must endure
results in a finding of constructive dismissal.
Having failed to prove that her transfer was a result of discrimination, bad faith or disdain
by the petitioners, Perez's claim of constructive dismissal must necessarily fail.
| 103COVERED CASES (JULY 01, 2017 TO JUNE 30, 2018)
ON LABOR LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION
THE FACTS OF ILLEGAL DISMISSAL MUST FIRST BE PROVED BY THE
EMPLOYEE
BEFORE THE BURDEN SHIFTS TO THE EMPLOYER
Allan John Uy Reyes vs. Global Beer Below Zero, Inc.,
G.R. No. 222816; October 4, 2017
Peralta, J.
FACTS:
This is a petition for review on Certiorari seeking to declare illegal the dismissal of petitioner
Allan Reyes (Reyes) who was the operations manager of respondent Global Beer Below Zero Inc.,
(GBZ).
Reyes alleged that he was illegally terminated from work by GBZ’s Vice President for
Operations, Vinson Co Say (Co Say). Reyes alleged that on separate occasions, Co Say contacted
him through phone calls and text messages informing him not to report for work anymore. He
further averred that it was due to his leave of absences that caused his dismissal from work. GBZ,
on the other hand, alleged that it was Reyes who voluntarily stopped from coming to work and that
there was no order of dismissal on their part. Furthermore, according to GBZ, Reyes was
oftentimes absent without first securing the consent of GBZ.
Reyes filed a case for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter (LA) ruled in favor of Reyes. On
appeal, National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the findings of the LA. However,
the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the Decision of the NLRC, ruling that Reyes failed to prove by
sufficient evidence that he was dismissed from service. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE:
Does the employee need to prove the fact of illegal dismissal?
RULING:
Yes, the employee has the burden of proof in showing by substantial evidence that there
has been an illegal dismissal.
As provided in Philippine Rural Reconstruction Movement (PRRM) v. Pulgar, before the
employer must bear the burden of proving that the dismissal was legal, the employee must first
establish by substantial evidence the fact of his dismissal from service. In this case, the
complainant sufficiently alleged the surrounding circumstances of his dismissal. He was able to
state, with the required particularities how he was terminated from his employment. He stated in
detail that on January 19, 2012, he was not able to report for work early due to his son’s illness. He
also alleged that respondent Co Say called him and angrily told him not to report for work anymore
and that they will have to talk in a week’s time. While the allegations of the complainant may not
be taken as gospel truths at this point, the complainant was able to establish that he was dismissed
from his employment contrary to the denials of the respondents.
Thus, it is now incumbent upon the respondents to prove that the complainant was validly
dismissed from his job in the light of the detailed and straightforward narration of the complainant.
104 | COVERED CASES (JULY 01, 2017 TO JUNE 30, 2018)
ON LABOR LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION
CONSTRUCTIVE DISMISSAL IS A DISMISSAL IN DISGUISE OR AN ACT
AMOUNTING
TO DISMISSAL BUT MADE TO APPEAR AS IF IT WERE NOT
Meatworld International, Inc. vs. Dominique A. Hechanova
G.R. No. 208053; October 18, 2017
Del Castillo, J.
FACTS:
In this petition for review on Certiorari, petitioner Meatworld International assails the
resolution of the CA, which dismissed petitioner’s earlier petition for certiorari and affirmed the
decision of the NLRC and LA, finding petitioner liable for illegal dismissal of respondent Dominique
A. Hechanova (Hechanova).
Petitioner, a corporation engaged in selling fresh meat, hired respondent Hechanova as a
head butcher. Hechanova was allegedly suspended for violating SM Hypermarket Regulations.
After his suspension, he returned to the office of petitioner for his reassignment but was told that
there was no available outlet yet. He was temporarily assigned in Robinsons Manila but was
quickly relieved from assignment. He asked the supervisor when he can return to work. He was
told that he can return at any time. But upon his return he was scolded by the supervisor for not
arriving in the morning and told him "Magresign ka na lang or tanggalin ka namin”. Thereafter,
Hechanova filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before the LA.
Petitioner claimed that it did not dismiss respondent as he was the one who failed to report
for work, which made the vacancy which he was supposed to fill no longer available. Respondent
claims that petitioner forced him to resign since the latter refused to give him any work assignment.
ISSUE:
Does the failure to assign a previously suspended employee to an available post in the
absence of proof that there was no available post amount to illegal dismissal?
RULING:
Yes, the failure to assign a previously suspended employee to an available post in the
absence of proof that there were no posts available amounts to illegal dismissal.
The Court finds that although there was no actual dismissal, the failure of petitioner to
assign respondent to a specific branch without any justifiable reason constituted illegal constructive
dismissal. As stated in Galang v. Malasugui, constructive dismissal is defined as a cessation of
work because continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely. Similarly,
there is constructive dismissal when an act of clear discrimination, insensibility or disdain by an
employer has become so unbearable to the employee leaving him with no option but to forego with
his continued employment.
In this case, petitioner admits that after relieving respondent from his assignment at
Robinsons Place Manila on January 5, 2011, it failed to assign him to a new branch. However, to
justify its failure, petitioner claims that there was no available post as the vacancy which
respondent was supposed to fill was no longer available since he failed to report on January 6,
2011. The employer should bear the burden of proving that there are no posts available to which
the employee temporarily out of work can be assigned. Petitioner failed to prove the same.
Therefore, petitioner’s failure to assign respondent to any post amounted to illegal
dismissal.
| 105COVERED CASES (JULY 01, 2017 TO JUNE 30, 2018)
ON LABOR LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION
MERE FAILURE TO REPORT TO WORK IS INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT A
CHARGE OF
ABANDONMENT; IT MUST BE PROVEN BY AN OVERT ACT OF DELIBERATE
REFUSAL
TO RESUME EMPLOYMENT
Demex Rattancraft, Inc. vs. Rosalio A. Leron
G.R. No. 204288; November 8, 2017
Leonen, J.
FACTS:
This is a petition for review on Certiorari seeking to reverse the upholding of the illegal
dismissal of respondent Rosalio Leron (Leron) who was employed by petitioner Demex
Rattancraft, Inc. (Demex) as a weaver.
On June 28, 2006, Leron did not report for work. The next day, he filed a complaint against
Demex for illegal dismissal arguing that his dismissal was due to the accusation against him of
instigating a campaign to remove the foreman. Demex construed Leron's failure to report to work
as an absence without leave and sent Leron a notice requiring him to return to work. This was
personally served to Leron by one (1) of his co-employees. Demex then sent another notice to
Leron requiring him to report to work. Despite having received these two (2) notices, Leron did not
resume his post. Subsequently, Leron received a third notice from Demex informing him of its
decision to terminate his services on the ground of abandonment.
The Labor Arbiter (LA) ruled that Leron was legally dismissed which was affirmed by the
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). On appeal, the Court of Appeals found that Demex
failed to prove that there was abandonment on the part of Leron. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE:
Does the act of not reporting for work constitute abandonment?
RULING:
No, the mere act of not reporting for work does not constitute abandonment.
Article 297 of the Labor Code enumerates the just causes for the dismissal of an employee.
Although abandonment of work is not expressly enumerated as a just cause under Article 297 of
the Labor Code, jurisprudence has recognized it as a form of or akin to neglect of duty.
Abandonment of work has been construed as “a clear and deliberate intent to discontinue one’s
employment without any intention of returning back.” To justify the dismissal of an employee on
this ground, two (2) elements must concur, namely: “(a) the failure to report for work or absence
without valid or justifiable reason; and (b) a clear intention to sever the employer-employee
relationship.” Mere failure to report to work is insufficient to support a charge of abandonment. The
employer must adduce clear evidence of the employee’s “deliberate, unjustified refusal to resume
his employment,” which is manifested through the employee’s overt acts.
Intent to sever the employer-employee relationship can be proven through the overt acts
of an employee. However, this intent cannot be lightly inferred or legally presumed from certain
ambivalent acts. The overt acts, after being considered as a whole, must clearly show the
employee’s objective of discontinuing his or her employment. Petitioner’s evidence does not clearly
establish a case of abandonment. Petitioners failed to prove the second element of abandonment,
which is regarded by this Court as the more decisive factor. Petitioners point to respondent’s
absences, noncompliance with the return-to-work notices, and his alleged act of crumpling the first
return-to-work notice as indicators of abandonment. These acts still fail to convincingly show
respondent’s clear and unequivocal intention to sever his employment.
Hence, respondent was illegally dismissed from employment as his act of not reporting for
work does not constitute abandonment.
106 | COVERED CASES (JULY 01, 2017 TO JUNE 30, 2018)
ON LABOR LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION
NON-COMPLIANCE WITH RETURN TO WORK DIRECTIVE IS DEEMED
ABANDONMENT OF EMPLOYMENT
Mehitabel, Inc. vs. Jufhel L. Alcuizar
G.R. No. 228701-02; December 13, 2017
Velasco, Jr., J.
FACTS:
In this petition for review on Certiorari, petitioner Mehitabel, Inc. assails the decision of the
CA, which reversed the decision of the NLRC and LA, finding respondent Jufhel L. Alcuizar
(Alcuizar) illegally dismissed.
Mehitabel, Inc. hired Alcuizar as its Purchasing Manager. Alcuizar’s immediate supervisor
started receiving complaints on his work ethics. Despite repeated counseling, Alcuizar’s
performance exacerbated to the point that even the top-level officers of the company have
expressed their dissatisfaction over his ineptitude. Alcuizar left the premises of Mehitabel, Inc. and
gave word that he was quitting his job. Mehitabel, Inc. wrote to Alcuizar via registered mail to inform
him that the company decided to treat his act of leaving the office as a violation of its code of
conduct, specifically on the provision of abandonment. Despite receipt of the letter, Alcuizar never
reported back to work nor submitted his written explanation.
Alcuizar filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before the LA. Respondent emphasized that
petitioner caused the publication in a newspaper and online a notice of a vacant position for
Purchasing Manager, the very same item he was occupying in the company. Subsequently, he
was allegedly advised that the company no longer required his services for his failure to
satisfactorily meet the company's performance standards. Seeking to absolve itself from the
charge, petitioner countered that respondent was not illegally dismissed, and that it was the latter
who abandoned his post.
ISSUE:
Did Alcuizar commit an act of abandonment which warranted his dismissal?
RULING:
Yes. Alcuizar abandoned his job. Abandonment is a ground for dismissal for just cause.
As stated in Noblejas v. Italian Maritime Academy Phils., Inc., in illegal termination cases,
the fact of dismissal must be established by positive and overt acts of an employer indicating the
intention to dismiss before the burden is shifted to the employer that the dismissal was legal.
In the extant case, the records are bereft of any evidence that would corroborate
respondent’s claim that he was actually dismissed from employment. Petitioner herein issued a
Return to Work order to respondent, which the latter received through registered mail. This
circumstance bears more weight and effectively negates respondent’s self-serving asseveration
that he was dismissed from employment; it more than implies that the company still considered
respondent as its employee. Respondent’s noncompliance with the directive in the Return to Work
signifies his intention to sever the employment relation with petitioner and gives credence to the
latter’s claim that it was respondent who abandoned his job.
Therefore, there is no illegal dismissal to speak of. Instead, it was respondent who clearly
demonstrated his lack of interest in resuming his employment with petitioner, culminating in
abandonment.
| 107COVERED CASES (JULY 01, 2017 TO JUNE 30, 2018)
ON LABOR LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION
IN ILLEGAL DISMISSAL CASES, THE EMPLOYER HAS THE BURDEN OF
PROVING
THAT THE TERMINATION WAS FOR A VALID OR AUHORIZED CAUSE;
EMPLOYEE
MUST FIRST ESTABLISH BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THE FACT OF HIS
DISMISSAL
FROM EMPLOYMENT
Expedition Construction Corporation, Simon Lee Paz and Jordan Jimenez vs. Alexander M.
Africa et. al.
G.R. No. 228671; December 14, 2017
Del Castillo, J.
FACTS:
In a petition for review on Certiorari, petitioner Expedition Construction Corp. (Expedition),
Simon Lee Paz, and Jordan Jimenez as CEO and Operations Manager, respectively, assails the
decision of the CA, which affirmed with modification the NLRC’s order of reinstatement and the
payment of full backwages of drivers-respondents Alexander Africa et. al. for having been illegally
dismissed.
Petitioners engaged the services of respondents as garbage truck drivers to collect
garbage from different cities and transport the same to the designated dumping site. Respondents
alleged that they were illegally terminated from employment when they were prevented from
entering the premises of Expedition without cause or due process. They claimed that they were
regular employees of Expedition.
Expedition, in its Position Paper, countered that respondents were not illegally dismissed.
It averred that it entered into separate contracts with the cities of Quezon, Mandaluyong, Caloocan,
and Muntinlupa for the collection and transport of their garbage to the dump site; that respondents
were not its employees; that they were not under Expedition’s direct control and supervision and,
that it nonetheless tried to accommodate respondents by giving them intermittent trips whenever
the need arose. Petitioner claims that respondents’ money claims had no legal basis.
ISSUE:
Will respondents’ complaint for illegally dismissal prosper despite lack of sufficient proof
that they were laid off work?
RULING:
No, respondents were not illegally dismissed as there was no sufficient proof that they
were actually laid off from work.
As stated in Noblejas v. Italian Maritime Academy Phils., Inc., in illegal dismissal cases,
the employer has the burden of proving that the termination was for a valid or authorized cause.
However, it is likewise incumbent upon an employee to first establish by substantial evidence the
fact of his dismissal from employment by positive and overt acts of an employer indicating the
intention to dismiss.
In this case, there was no positive or direct evidence to substantiate respondents' claim
that they were dismissed from employment. Aside from mere assertions, the record is bereft of
any indication that respondents were barred from Expedition's premises. If at all, the evidence on
record showed that Expedition intended to give respondents new assignments as a result of the
termination of the garbage hauling contracts with Quezon City and Caloocan City where
respondents were regularly dispatched. However, instead of returning and waiting for their next
assignments, respondents instituted an illegal dismissal case against Expedition. It was
respondents who no longer wanted to return to work.
Hence, respondents were not illegally dismissed.