THIRD DIVISION
|
AFI INTERNATIONAL TRADING
CORPORATION (ZAMBOANGA BUYING STATION) and CELEDONIO RAYMUNDO, JR., Petitioners, - versus - DENNIS G. LORENZO and
CECILIO S. SORSAN, Respondents. |
G.R. No. 173256
Present: YNARES-SANTIAGO, J., Chairperson, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, CHICO-NAZARIO, NACHURA, and REYES, JJ. Promulgated: |
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
NACHURA, J.:
In
illegal dismissal cases, the onus of
proving that the employee was not dismissed or if dismissed, that the dismissal
was not illegal, rests on the employer and failure to discharge that burden
would mean that the dismissal is not justified and therefore illegal.[1] We reiterate that principle in this case.
Petitioner
AFI International Trading Corporation (or AFI) is a corporation engaged in
buying and manufacturing marine and seafood products. Respondent Dennis Lorenzo was hired by AFI as
processor on
In March 1999, AFI started paying respondents
on a piece-rate or per-kilo basis. Respondents
were assured that it would only be temporary, but it continued for several
years. Hence, on
Petitioners,
on the other hand, presented a different version, and maintained that respondents
were dismissed for just cause and with due process. They asserted that respondents, who had no
approved application for leave, did not report for work beginning
On
The undersigned hereby finds and rule
(sic) that there was illegal dismissal.
For abandonment to be a valid ground of dismissal, two elements must be
proved: The intention of an employee to abandon, coupled with an overt act from
which it maybe inferred that the employee has no more intent to resume his
work. x x x
Abandonment
does not sever employer-employee relationship, it is merely a form of neglect
of duty, which is in turn a just cause for termination of employment. The operative act that will ultimately put an
end to this relation is the dismissal of the employee after complying with the
procedure prescribed by law. If the
employer does not follow this procedure there is illegal dismissal, as in this
case, when the [petitioners] simply refused to let the [respondents] work,
thereby effecting their actual dismissal.
Thus, there is actually no abandonment.
As a matter of fact, after [petitioners] told them that they are already
terminated, still, they reported back for work on 19 January 2002 in the hope
that [petitioners] might consider his stand, however, they were refused and
told them (sic) they are already terminated.
The
alleged notice dated
Moreover
the fact that the [respondents] also filed this case on
[Respondents’] dismissals being illegal for lack of just cause as well as lack of due process, as explained above, the [respondents] are entitled to reinstatement (Art. 279 of the Labor Code, as amended). Since, however, they expressly prays (sic) for separation pay x x x, the same shall be granted to them in lieu of reinstatement. x x x[5]
On
appeal by petitioners, the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter, holding that the
latter abused his discretion in delving into the issue of abandonment when the
dismissal was grounded on gross and habitual neglect of duty. While declaring that a five-day absence would
not constitute gross and habitual neglect of duty, the NLRC denied respondents their
backwages and separation pay, reasoning that the latter were never dismissed,
but voluntarily terminated their employment. In ruling so, it declared that
there was no overt act of termination on the part of petitioners to warrant the
conclusion that respondents were dismissed on
Respondents
went to the Court of Appeals via certiorari. On
AFI filed a motion for
reconsideration, but the Court of Appeals denied it on
Hence, this appeal by petitioners, positing that:
THE HONORABLE COURT COMMITTED SERIOUS REVERSIBLE ERROR IN
REVERSING AND SETTING ASIDE THE DECISION OF THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (NLRC).[8]
Relying upon the basic rule
in evidence that each party must prove his affirmative allegation, petitioners
assert that respondents failed to establish that they had been illegally
dismissed. Respondents offered no proof
to substantiate their barefaced allegation of dismissal. Thus, they fault the Court of Appeals for
sustaining respondents.
As stated at the outset,
in illegal dismissal cases, the employer is burdened to prove just cause for
terminating the employment of its employees with clear and convincing
evidence. Article 277(b) of the Labor
Code[9]of
the Philippines puts on the employer the burden of proving that the dismissal
of an employee was for a valid or authorized cause, whether the latter admits
or does not admit the dismissal.[10]
Thus, petitioners must not only rely on the weakness of respondents’ evidence,
but must stand on the merits of their own defense.[11]
Petitioners denied that they
dismissed the respondents. They insist that there was no overt or positive act
of termination to justify the respondents’ claim of illegal termination. Such protestation strikes the Court as a
strained attempt to rationalize an untenable position.
Notably, before the Labor Arbiter,
petitioners never denied that respondents were terminated. In fact, they vehemently justified
respondents’ dismissal claiming that it was for just cause and upon compliance
with due process.[12] It was only when the NLRC ruled, albeit
erroneously, that respondents voluntarily terminated their employment, that
petitioners sang a different song, so to speak, and denied that respondents
were dismissed. This Court will not allow
this obvious turnaround. The change of
theory by the petitioners at this stage cannot prosper.
Respondents were dismissed for gross
and habitual neglect of duty. Gross
negligence connotes want of care in the performance of one's duties, while habitual
neglect implies repeated failure to perform one's duties for a period of time,
depending upon the circumstances. The single or isolated act of negligence does
not constitute a just cause for the dismissal of the employee.[13]
In this light, we agree with the
following disquisition of the Court of Appeals rejecting petitioners’ claim:
[C]ontrary to its
claim, [petitioners] utterly failed to show that [respondents] committed gross
neglect of duty as to warrant their dismissal.
Based
on the records, [respondents] had been working for private respondents as raw
processors of marine and seafood products for 10 years and as far as
employer-employee relationship is concerned, those 10 years were
uneventful. It was only on
[Petitioners]
are not quite correct in claiming that [respondents] were absent for five (5)
consecutive days from
Undoubtedly, no just cause exists to
warrant the respondents’ dismissal.
Lack of just cause in terminating the
respondents rendered their dismissal illegal.
Consequently, they are entitled to reinstatement to their former
positions without loss of seniority rights and payment of back wages. However,
if such reinstatement proves impracticable and hardly in the best interest of
the parties, perhaps due to the lapse of time since their dismissal,[15]
or if the employee decides not to be reinstated,[16] respondents
should be awarded separation pay in lieu of reinstatement. We, therefore, agree with the Labor Arbiter
and the Court of Appeals that separation pay in lieu of reinstatement and back wages
is warranted in this case.
In fine, we find no reversible error
in the assailed rulings of the Court of Appeals.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.
The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. SP. No. 75924,
are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
ANTONIO
EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
|
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ Associate
Justice |
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice |
RUBEN T. REYES
Associate
Justice
A T T E S T A T I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision were
reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court’s Division.
CONSUELO
YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate
Justice
Chairperson,
Third Division
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution
and the Division Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in
the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Chief
Justice
[1] Great Southern Maritime Services Corporation
v. Acuña, G.R. No. 140189, February 28, 2005, 452 SCRA 422, 437.
[2] Labor Arbiter’s Decision, rollo, pp. 69-73.
[3]
[4] Rollo, pp. 55-64.
[5]
[6] Penned by Associate Justice Teresita Dy-Liacco Flores, with Associate Justices Rodrigo F. Lim, Jr. and Ramon R. Garcia, concurring; rollo, pp. 27-37.
[7] Rollo, p. 46.
[8]
[9] ART. 277. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS:
x x x x
Subject to the constitutional right of the workers to security of tenure and their right to be protected against dismissal except for a just and valid and authorized cause and without prejudice to the requirement of notice under Article 283 of this Code, the employer shall furnish the worker whose employment is sought to be terminated a written notice containing a statement of the causes for termination and shall afford the latter ample opportunity to be heard and defend himself with the assistance of his representative if he so desires in accordance with company rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to the guidelines set by the Department of Labor and Employment. Any decision taken by the employer shall be without prejudice to the right of the workers to contest the validity or legality of his dismissal by filing a complaint with the regional branch of the National Labor Relations Commission. The burden of proving that the termination was for a valid or authorized cause shall rest on the employer. x x x
[10] Sevillana v. I.T. (International)
Corporation/Samir Maddah & Travellers Insurance & Surety Corp., 408
Phil. 570, 584 (2001)..
[11] Great Southern Maritime Services Corporatin
v. Acuña, supra note 1, at 437.
[12] Position Paper, rollo, pp. 55-64.
[13] Genuino Ice Co., Inc. v. Magpantay, G.R. No. 147740, June 27, 2006, 493 SCRA 195, 205-206.
[14] Rollo, pp. 32-33.
[15]
National Bookstore, Inc. v. Court of
Appeals, 428 Phil. 235, 247 (2002).
[16] Velasco v. National Labor Relations Commission,
G.R. No. 161694,