Harpoon Marine Services Inc. v.
Francisco (ESCAÑO) ISSUE/s:
G.R. No. 167751| March 2, 2011| Del Castillo, J.
ABANDONMENT
PETITIONER: HARPOON MARINE SERVICES, Inc. and JOSE LIDO T.
ROSIT
RESPONDENTS: FERNAN H. FRANCISCO
SUMMARY
FACTS:
 Harpoon Marine Services hired Francisco as a Yard Supervisor.
On June 15, 2001, Francisco averred that Harpoon dismissed
him from work but promised to pay his separation pay and
accrued commissions. He continued reporting for work, but was
barred from entering the premises. He thereafter tried to claim
his separation pay and commissions, but Harpoon, through its
president Rosit, denied payment of his commissions. Refusing
to sign a quitclaim, Francisco demanded payment of his
commissions, then filed a case before the Labor Arbiter for
illegal dismissal. He supported his claim for commissions with
two vouchers evincing payments for vessel repairs, arguing that
he was paid P10,000 for each vessel he repaired.
Harpoon averred that on June 15, 2001, Rosit merely met with
Francisco to warn him regarding his habitual absences and
tardiness. When Francisco continued to be absent, Harpoon
sent him memoranda informing him of his absences, which were
filed with the DOLE on August 15, 2001. Francisco was then
terminated on July 30, 2001. With regard to the commissions
claimed, Harpoon averred that Francisco was only a regular
employee, with a regular salary, and that the supposed
"commissions" were merely additional money recognizing
Franciscos efforts.
 The Labor Arbiter ruled that Francisco was legally dismissed
and that due process was served through the several
memoranda sent to him. It also ruled that commissions were due
Francisco, and gave credence to the vouchers.
 The NLRC, however, held that Francisco was illegally
dismissed, for his timecard for June 2001 only showed three
absences, which could hardly be called habitual and therefore
cannot be a ground for termination. It upheld the Labor Arbiter
with regard to the commissions.
 The CA affirmed the NLRC, and held that Harpoon president
Rosit should be solidarily liable with the company.
Whether or not Francisco was illegally dismissed
RULING:
The SC held that the termination was illegal. As stated by the NLRC,
Franciscos timecard only showed three consecutive absences and no
record of tardiness, which hardly constitutes gross or habitual
absence/tardiness. Moreso, the reasons for Franciscos three-day
absence were not contested by Harpoon before the Labor Arbiter, and
no other evidence was presented before the Labor Arbiter to prove such
"habitual" tardiness/absence. The argument that Francisco abandoned
his work and went AWOL also does not hold water, since Harpoon failed
to prove that the two elements of work abandonment existed: namely,
that there is absence of failure to report to work for no justifiable reason,
and that there is intent to sever the employee-employer relationship.
Here, Harpoon failed to prove that it was respondent who voluntarily
refused to report back for work by his defiance and refusal to accept the
memoranda and the notices of absences sent to him.Harpoon failed to
present evidence that they sent these notices to respondents last known
address for the purpose of warning him that his continued failure to
report would be construed as abandonment of work. Verily, an absence
of three days does not constitute habitual absence justifying a
termination from work.
WHEREFORE, the decision dated 31 March 2003 is further MODIFIED.
Respondents are found to have illegally dismissed complainant Fernan
H. Francisco
Other Issues:
2.Whether or not he was entitled to his commissions
3.Whether Rosit is solidarily liable with Harpoon
Ruling:
Second issue: The SC held that Francisco was not entitled to the
commissions. The check vouchers contained very scant details and did not
state that they were paid for the construction or repair of a vessel. They did
not state the purpose for which the amounts were paid. Moreover, the list of
vessels presented with the vouchers does not validate Franciscos monetary
claim for it only contains a list of vessels, and nothing more. The vouchers
patent vagueness makes them unreliable as a basis for Franciscos claim of
commissions. Entitlement to commissions cannot be proved by vouchers
which are silent as to the purpose for which they are issued.
Third issue: The SC disagrees with the Labor Arbiter and NLRC in
according solidary liability on Rosit and Harpoon for the illegal dismissal. As
held in the case ofMAM Realty Development Corporation v. National Labor
Relations Commission, "obligations incurred by [corporate officers], acting as
such corporate agents, are not theirs but the direct accountabilities of the
corporation they represent." As such, they should not be generally held jointly
and solidarily liable with the corporation. The Court, however, cited
circumstances when solidary liabilities may be imposed, as when the officer
acted in bad faith or gross negligence in handling corporate affairs. Here, the
CA imposed personal liability on Rosit based on bad faith, even though there
was no proof that Rosit acted with bad faith or outside of his authority as
company president. At most, his acts merely showed the absence of a just or
valid cause in terminating the employment of Francisco.