a collections of case digests and laws that can help aspiring law students to become a lawyer.
|
Respondents, who were employed as security guards by the petitioner filed a complaint of constructive dismissal against the petitioner. The respondents were replaced from their assignment as security guards at Ibiden Philippines as part of the petitioner’s action plan to rotate its security guards. Pursuant to the plan, petitioner issued separate “Notices to Return to Unit” directing them to report to its head office and to update their documents for reassignment. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for constructive dismissal for lack of evidence. He declared that the return-to-work notices issued by the petitioner belied the respondents' charge of illegal dismissal, opining that a security guard could be considered as having been constructively dismissed only when he had been placed on floating status for a period of more than six months. On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the Labor Arbiter's dismissal, and ordered the petitioner to reinstate the respondents with back wages. It noted that had the petitioner really intended to re-assign the respondents to new posts, the petitioner should have indicated in the notices the new postings or re-assignments. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the NLRC finding the petitioner liable for illegal dismissal of the respondent security guards. The CA concluded that although the complaint for illegal dismissal was prematurely filed because six months had not yet elapsed to warrant considering the dismissal as constructive dismissal, the continued failure to give the respondents new assignments during the proceedings before the Labor Arbiter that exceeded the reasonable six-month period rendered the petitioner liable for constructive dismissal of the respondents; that the petitioner's insistence that the respondents had abandoned their employment was bereft of basis; and that abandonment as a just ground for dismissal required clear, willful, deliberate and unjustified refusal on the part of the employees to resume their employment; hence, their mere absence from work or failure to report for work even after the notice to return was not tantamount to abandonment. Issue: Whether or not the respondent security guards were constructively dismissed. Held: No. The Court concurred with the Labor Arbiter’s finding that there was no evidence showing that the respondents had been constructively dismissed from their posts at Ibiden. The notices sent to them contained nothing from which to justly infer there having been terminated from their employment. Moreover, their complaint for illegal dismissal was even prematurely filed on August 14, 2008 because the notices were sent to each of them only in the period from July 3, 2008 to August 2, 2008. The Court also recognized the management prerogative of the petitioner as employer to change their postings and assignments without severing their employment relationship. It was not sufficiently establishing the fact of their dismissal from their employment. Their employers retain the management prerogative to change their assignments and postings, and to decide to temporarily relieve them of their assignments since employment of security guards depends on their employers' contracts with clients who are third parties. In other words, their security of tenure, does not vest them with the right to their positions or assignments that will prevent their transfers or re-assignments. Only when the period of their reserved or off-detail status exceeds the reasonable period of six months without re-assignment should the affected security guards be regarded as dismissed. The respondents had actually abandoned their employment and had severed their employment relationship with the petitioner themselves by either refusing to receive and acknowledge the employer Notices to Return to Unit or not reporting to the new assignment. Likewise, some respondents had already found employment elsewhere during their reserved status and prior to the lapse of the six-month period, actions which constituted abandonment of employment and intention to sever their employer-employee relationship with the petitioner. WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the petition and REINSTATES the decision of the Labor Arbiter dismissing the complaint for illegal dismissal.
0 Comments
Facts:
The 23 respondents were employed by petitioner SKM Art Craft Corporation which is engaged in the handicraft business. On April 18, 2000, around 1:12 a.m., a fire occurred at the inspection and receiving/repair/packing area of petitioner’s premises in Intramuros, Manila. The fire investigation report stated that the structure and the beach rubber building were totally damaged. Also burned were four container vans and a trailer truck. The estimated damage was P22 million. On May 8, 2000, petitioner informed respondents that it will suspend its operations for six months, effective May 9, 2000. On May 16, 2000, only eight days after receiving notice of the suspension of petitioner’s operations, the 23 respondents (and other coworkers) filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. They alleged that there was discrimination in choosing the workers to be laid off and that petitioner had discovered that most of them were members of a newly organized union. Petitioner denied the claim of illegal dismissal and said that Article 286ofthe Labor Code allows the bona fide suspension of a business or undertaking for a period not exceeding six months. Petitioner claimed that the fire cost it millions in losses and that it is impossible to resume its normal operations for a significant period of time. LA: respondents were illegally dismissed and ordered petitioner to reinstate them and pay them back wages. The Labor Arbiter ruled that the fire that burned a part of petitioner’s premises may validate the suspension of respondents’ employment, but the suspension must not exceed six months. Since petitioner failed to recall respondents after the lapse of six months, the Labor Arbiter held that respondents were illegally dismissed. NLRC: set aside the Labor Arbiter’s Decision and ruled that there was no illegal dismissal. CA: set aside the NLRC Decision and Resolution and reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s Decision. The CA ruled that petitioner failed to prove that its suspension of operations is bona fide . The CA noted that the proof of alleged losses – the list of items and materials allegedly burned – was not even certified or signed by petitioner’s accountant or comptroller. And even if the suspension of operations is considered bona fide, the CA said that respondents were not reinstated after six months. Issue: Whether respondents were illegally dismissed. Held: While we agree with the NLRC that the suspension of petitioner’s operation is valid, the Labor Arbiter and the CA are correct that respondents were illegally dismissed since they were not recalled after six months, after the bona fide suspension of petitioner’s operations. We agree with the Labor Arbiter and the CA that respondents were already considered illegally dismissed since petitioner failed to recall them after six months, when its bona fide suspension of operations lapsed. We stress that under Article 286 of the Labor Code, the employment will not be deemed terminated if the bona fide suspension of operations does not exceed six months. But if the suspension of operations exceeds six months, the employment will be considered terminated. Under Article 286 of the Labor Code, the bona fide suspension of the operation of a business or undertaking for a period not exceeding six months shall not terminate employment. Consequently, when the bona fide suspension of the operation of a business or undertaking exceeds six months, then the employment of the employee shall be deemed terminated. By the same token and applying said rule by analogy, if the employee was forced to remain without work or assignment for a period exceeding six months, then he is in effect constructively dismissed. Indeed, petitioner’s manifestation dated October 2, 2001 that it is willing to admit respondents if they return to work was belatedly made, almost one year after petitioner’s suspension of operations expired in November 2000. We find that petitioner no longer recalled, nor wanted to recall, respondents after six months. HENCE, THE RESPONDENTS WERE ILLEGALLY DISMISSED. Facts:
NPHI hired respondent Maiah Angela Leynes on 26 March 2001 for the position of Property Manager. On 6 February 2002, Leynes had a misunderstanding with Engr. Honesto Cantuba regarding the extension of the latter working hours. Leynes barred Cantuba from entry into the Project, and she also sent a letter to NHPI HR Head to apprise the latter of Cantuba's supposed insubordination and disrespectful conduct. Cantuba, in turn, accused Leynes of pride, conceit and poor managerial skills. Hiroshi Takada, NHPI VP, later issued a memo, attributing the incident to "simple personal differences" and directed Leynes to allow Cantuba to report back for work. Disappointed with the management decision, Leynes submitted a letter asking for an emergency leave of absence for the supposed purpose of coordinating with her lawyer regarding her resignation letter. Meanwhile, NHPI offered the Property Manager position to Engr. Carlos Jose as a consequence of Leynes’ signifying her intention to resign. It also appeared that Leynes sent another letter, expressing her intention to return to work and to call off her planned resignation upon the advice of her lawyer. Leynes was later served with a letter and memo relieving her from her position and directing her to report to NHPI main office while she was on floating status.Aggrieved, Leynes lost no time in filing against NHPI and its officers a complaint for illegal dismissal, unpaid salaries, benefits, damages and attorney fees before the NLRC. NHPI and its officers asserted that the management exercise of the prerogative to put an employee on floating status for a period not exceeding six months was justified in view of her threatened resignation from her position and BGCC request for her replacement. During the pendency of the case, however, Reyes eventually served the DOLE and Leynes with a notice terminating her services effective 22 August 2002, on the ground of redundancy or lack of a posting commensurate to her position at the Project. Leynes was offered by NHPI the sum of P28,188.16 representing her unpaid wages, proportionate 13th month pay, tax refund and service incentive leave pay (SILP). The LA found that the NHPI act of putting Leynes on floating status was equivalent to termination from employment without just cause and compliance with the twin requirements of notice and hearing. On appeal, the NLRC reversed the LA decision. Leynes elevated the case to the CA on a Rule 65 petition for certiorari and the CA reversed the NLRC decision. Issue: Is “off-detailing” or “floating status” equivalent to constructive dismissal. Held: No. The rule is settled that “off-detailing” is not equivalent to dismissal, so long as such status does not continue beyond a reasonable time and that it is only when such a “floating status” lasts for more than six months that the employee may be considered to have been constructively dismissed. A complaint for illegal dismissal filed prior to the lapse of said six-month and/or the actual dismissal of the employee is generally considered as prematurely filed. |
Archives
December 2023
Categories
All
|