THIRD DIVISION
|
BALTAZAR L. PAYNO, Petitioner, - versus - ORIZON TRADING CORP./ORATA
TRADING and FLORDELIZA LEGASPI, Respondents. |
G.R.
No. 175345
Present: CARPIO MORALES, J.,*
CHICO-NAZARIO,** Acting
Chairperson, VELASCO, JR., NACHURA, and PERALTA, JJ. Promulgated: August
19, 2009 |
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
NACHURA, J.:
This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision[1] of
the Court of Appeals (CA) dated July 18, 2006 and the resolution[2]
dated November 6, 2006 denying the motion for reconsideration thereof in
CA-G.R. SP No. 91418.
The antecedent facts are as follows:
On
October 21, 1993, petitioner Baltazar L. Payno was employed as electrician by
Orata Trading, a single proprietorship engaged in signboard and billboard
advertising. He was later promoted to
senior installer.
On
April 11, 2000, petitioner was informed by the personnel manager that Orata
Trading would cease its business operations and that Orizon Trading Corporation
was taking over. Petitioner asked about
the status of his employment, and further inquired if he would be receiving separation
pay due to the closure of Orata Trading.
He was told that no separation pay was forthcoming, since Orizon Trading
Corporation was merely absorbing Orata Trading - maintaining its premises, and
retaining all its officers and employees without any diminution in salary and
rank. He was, however, informed that he
would have to sign a new employment contract with Orizon Trading Corporation.
Perturbed
with the new set-up, petitioner, on May 4, 2000, filed a complaint against
Orizon Trading for payment of separation pay due to the closure of Orata
Trading. Petitioner, nonetheless,
continued to work with Orizon Trading Corporation.
On June 3, 2000, petitioner was called
to the office, and was told not to report for work anymore if he did not sign
the employment contract. The general manager,
respondent Flordeliza Legaspi, offered him the amount of P7,000.00 as
separation pay. Petitioner refused since it was insufficient
and not commensurate to the more than seven (7) years he had worked with Orata
Trading. He demanded that he should be
paid separation pay in accordance with the Labor Code, since there was no proof
of financial losses suffered by Orata Trading.
On June 5, 2000, petitioner filed an
Amended Complaint[3] to
include “illegal dismissal” as another cause of action against respondents,
maintaining the relief for payment of separation pay, damages and attorney’s
fees.
For their part, respondents admitted
that petitioner worked with Orata Trading since 1993 and with Orizon Trading
Corporation when the latter took over the business. Respondents, however, alleged that petitioner
already thought of resigning from his job when he learned that separation pay could
not be expected as a result of the takeover of Orata Trading by Orizon Trading
Corporation. This intention was eventually
effected when petitioner refused to continue to work on June 3, 2000. Since he voluntarily resigned, he was not
entitled to separation pay; nonetheless, the amount of P7,000.00 was
offered to him by way of financial assistance.
On
July 6, 2001, the Labor Arbiter rendered judgment[4] in
favor of petitioner. The Labor Arbiter was
not convinced that petitioner resigned. Petitioner’s tenure of more than seven
(7) years with Orata Trading and the immediate filing of the case ran counter to
the claim that he resigned. Respondents failed
to show, much less prove, the reason for the closure of Orata Trading. The status of the employees absorbed by Orizon
Trading Corporation was also not clear. In
this case, respondents were found guilty of having constructively dismissed petitioner
when the latter was prevented from entering the workplace on June 3, 2000. Thus, petitioner should be paid separation pay
of one month for every year of service and full backwages, as provided by
Article 279 of the Labor Code. The
dispositive portion reads as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, Respondents are hereby declared to have constructively or illegally dismissed Complainant, and are hereby ORDERED to solidarily pay Complainant the following, to be computed up to the finality of this decision, but which as of Nov. 25, 2000, are as follows:
1.
separation pay: P6,500.00 x 7
(May
30, 1993 to as of Nov. 25, 2000) - P 45,500.00
2. backwages (June 3 to as of Nov. 25, 2000
more or less 6 months). - 39,000.00
3. moral damages - 20,000.00
--------------
Sub-total - P104,500.00
4. 10% attorney’s fees - 10,450.00
=========
Total - P114,950.00[5]
Both
parties appealed. On December 15, 2004,
the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed with modification the
decision of the Labor Arbiter. The dispositive portion reads as follows:
WHEREFORE, the appeal filed by complainant is hereby GRANTED. The appeal filed by respondents is DENIED for lack of merit except with respect to the award of damages and of attorney’s fees.
[Corollarily], the Decision of the
Labor Arbiter dated 06 July 2001 as to the finding of illegal dismissal, award
of separation pay computed from 30 May 1993 to the finality of this Decision is
AFFIRMED. The award of backwages is
hereby modified to include ECOLA, 13th month pay, service incentive
leave and such other benefits which complainant should have received had he not
been illegally dismissed, to be computed from 03 June 2000 up to the finality
of this Decision. The award of
attorney’s fees is hereby reduced to P5,000.00 while the award of
damages is deleted.
SO ORDERED.[6]
Imputing
grave abuse of discretion to the NLRC, respondents filed a petition for certiorari with the CA.
On July 18, 2006, the CA rendered the
assailed decision finding merit in the petition. The CA ruled that the complaint
for illegal/constructive dismissal had no basis. There was no act of
discrimination committed against petitioner that would render his employment
unbearable. The fact that petitioner
continued to work thereat and even received salary for more than a month from
Orizon Trading Corporation belies the claim that he was required to sign a new
contract. The CA found to be more
credible and consistent with human behavior respondents’ version that
petitioner resigned and left his employment when his demand for a bigger
separation pay was not heeded.[7] With no dismissal to speak of, whether legally
or illegally, no payment of separation pay was proper, thus:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant petition for certiorari is hereby GRANTED. The assailed Decision dated December 15, 2004 of the National Labor Relations Commission is hereby ANNULED and SET ASIDE. A new one is entered DISMISSING private respondent’s complaint against petitioners.
SO ORDERED.[8]
Aggrieved,
petitioner filed the instant petition assailing the aforesaid decision of the
CA.
The
central issue in this case is whether or not petitioner was illegally
dismissed.
Due to the variant findings of the CA
and the labor tribunals, we are constrained to take a second look at the factual
findings which, ordinarily, this Court is not duty-bound to do in petitions for
review under Rule 45. After a careful
review, we find that petitioner was illegally dismissed.
In termination cases, it is incumbent
upon the employer to prove either the non-existence or the validity of
dismissal. Inasmuch as respondents alleged petitioner’s resignation
as the cause of his separation from work, respondents had the burden to prove
the same. The case of the employer must
stand or fall on its own merits and not on the weakness of the employee’s
defense.[9]
Resignation is the voluntary act of an employee who is in a situation
where one believes that personal reasons cannot be sacrificed in favor of the
exigency of the service, and one who has no other choice but to dissociate
oneself from employment. It is a formal pronouncement or relinquishment of an
office, with the intention of relinquishing the office accompanied by the act
of relinquishment. As the intent to
relinquish must concur with the overt act of relinquishment, the acts of the
employee before and after the alleged resignation must be
considered in determining whether, in fact, he intended to sever his employment.[10]
In this case, we find no overt act on
the part of petitioner that he was ready to sever his employment ties. The alleged resignation was actually premised by
respondents only on the filing of the complaint for separation pay, but this
alone is not sufficient proof that petitioner intended to resign from the
company. What strongly negates the claim of resignation is the fact that
petitioner filed the amended complaint for illegal dismissal immediately after
he was not allowed to report for work on June 3, 2000. Resignation is inconsistent with the filing of
the complaint for illegal dismissal.[11] It
would have been illogical for petitioner
to resign and then file a complaint for illegal dismissal later on.[12] If petitioner was determined to resign, as
respondents posited, he would not have commenced the action for illegal
dismissal. Undeniably, petitioner was unceremoniously dismissed in
this case.
Furthermore, it must be noted that respondents
admit the closure of the business of Orata Trading and the immediate takeover
by Orizon Trading Corporation. Under Article 283[13]
of the Labor Code, the closing or cessation of the operations of Orata Trading
renders it liable for the payment of separation pay to the employees.[14]
Since petitioner was informed
by Orata’s personnel manager that no separation pay was forthcoming, the former
was constrained to file a claim therefor.
Petitioner was afraid to lose all benefits to which he was entitled for
the seven years he had worked with Orata Trading. This fear was not unfounded, since he was
required to sign a new employment contract and considered as a new employee of
Orizon Trading Corporation, and the years of service behind him would amount to
nothing.[15] We quote with approval the findings of the
NLRC, to wit:
As to the finding of illegal dismissal on the part of respondents and propriety of the award of separation pay, we affirm the same. We recall complainant’s allegations in his position paper: (1) he was told to sign a new employment contract with Orizon Trading Corporation without payment of any separation pay for the services he rendered for Orata Trading from 1993 to 2000; (2) he refused to sign a new employment contract
but was nevertheless employed by Orizon Trading Corporation when it took over Orata Trading’s business operation; (3) he was not paid any separation pay. None of these was ever denied by respondents.
Respondents admitted the closure of Orata Trading. This was a valid exercise of management prerogative. However, while the employer may terminate the employment of any employee due to the closing or cessation of its operation, it is required by law to pay all affected workers separation pay equivalent to at least one (1) month salary for every year of service when the closure is not due to serious losses. Complainant claimed he was not paid any separation pay by Orata Trading. Neither of the respondents claimed otherwise.
Orata Trading Personnel Manager Nini Rigor justified the non-payment of separation pay to complainant by telling him that nothing would differ with his work set-up with Orizon Trading Corporation. Respondents admitted the take over of Orata Trading’s business by Orizon Trading Corporation, including its premises and its employees. We agree that under this set-up, no separation pay need be paid to Orata Trading’s employees because there was no separation pay to speak of. There was continued employment from Orata Trading to Orizon Trading Corporation. However, records show that this was not the set-up intended by respondents. Complainant was required to sign a new employment contract with the new employer Orizon Trading Corporation and the new employer considered complainant’s employment as to have commenced only on the day of its takeover. There was, therefore, a break in complainant’s period of employment, rendering to naught complainant’s seven (7) years of service with Orata Trading. Complainant was undoubtedly deprived of his separation pay under Article 283 of the Labor Code from Orata Trading.
x x x x
As already pointed out, the present
complaint was filed on 04 May 2000 for recovery of separation pay pursuant to
Article 283 of the Labor Code, due to closure of Orata Trading. At this time, complainant had not been
dismissed and was allowed to continue working for Orizon Trading Corporation
upon its take over. Complainant’s
dismissal was effected on 03 June 2000, after respondents received the summons in
this case. The latter offered
complainant P7,000.00 separation pay which he refused to accept for
being insufficient. Complainant was then
disallowed to continue working. The
claim of illegal dismissal was, as argued by respondent “easily” incorporated
by complainant in his position paper filed on 13 July 2000 and he, thereby,
prayed for separation pay in lieu of reinstatement.[16]
WHEREFORE, the
petition is GRANTED. The decision of
the Court of Appeals dated July 18, 2006 is SET ASIDE. The decision of
the National Labor Relations Commission dated December 15, 2004 is REINSTATED.
SO
ORDERED.
ANTONIO
EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate
Justice Acting
Chairperson |
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate
Justice |
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
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.
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate
Justice
Acting 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 Acting Chairperson's Attestation, I certify 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.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief
Justice
* Additional member in lieu of Associate Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago per Special Order No. 679 dated August 3, 2009.
** In lieu of Associate Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago per Special Order No. 678 dated August 3, 2009.
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Lucenito N. Tagle, with Associate Justices Marina L. Buzon and Regalado E. Maambong, concurring; rollo, pp. 34-49.
[2]
[3] Rollo, p. 50.
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9] Cabalen Management Co., Inc. v. Quiambao, G.R. No. 169494, July 24,
2007, 528 SCRA 153.
[10] BMG Records (Phils.), Inc. v. Aparecio, G.R. No. 153290, September 5, 2007, 532 SCRA 300, 302.
[11] Blue Angel Manpower and Security Services, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 161196, July 28, 2008, 560 SCRA 157; Talidano v. Falcon Maritime & Allied Services, Inc., G.R. No. 172031, July 14, 2008, 558 SCRA 279, 280.
[12] Fungo
v.
[13] ART. 283. CLOSURE OF ESTABLISHMENT AND REDUCTION OF PERSONNEL
The employer may also terminate the employment of any employee due to the installation of labor-saving devices, redundancy, retrenchment to prevent losses or the closing or cessation of operation of the establishment or undertaking unless the closing is for the purpose of circumventing the provisions of this Title, by serving a written notice on the worker and the [Department of Labor and Employment] at least one (1) month before the intended date thereof. In case of termination due to the installation of labor saving devices or redundancy, the worker affected thereby shall be entitled to a separation pay equivalent to at least his one (1) month pay or to at least one (1) month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher. In case of retrenchment to prevent losses and in cases of closures or cessation of operations of establishment or undertaking not due to serious business losses or financial reverses, the separation pay shall be equivalent to one (1) month pay or at least one-half (1/2) month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher. A fraction of at least six (6) months shall be considered as one (1) whole year.
[14] Elcee
Farms, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 126428,
January 25, 2007, 512 SCRA 602, 604.
[15]
[16] Rollo, pp. 128-130.