a collections of case digests and laws that can help aspiring law students to become a lawyer
Ravengar G. Ibon was employed as a security guard by Genghis Khan Security Services in June 2008. He was initially assigned to a Mr. Solis in New Manila, Quezon City. In July 2008, he was transferred to the 5th Avenue Condominium in Fort Bonifacio, Taguig City, in September 2008 and was posted there until May 2009.
In June 2009, Ibon was transferred to the Aspen Tower Condominium until his last duty on October 4, 2010. Thereafter, Genghis Khan promised to provide him a new assignment, which, however, did not happen.
On May 10, 2011, petitioner filed a Complaint against respondent for illegal dismissal, with claims for underpayment of wages, holiday and rest day premiums, service incentive leave pay, non-payment of separation pay, and reimbursement of illegal deductions. He alleged that he was no longer assigned to a new post after his last duty on October 4, 2010.
Genghis Khan denied that Ibon was placed on a floating status for more than six (6) months. It claimed that he was suspended on October 4, 2010 for sleeping on the job. Genghis Khan added that Ibon was endorsed to another client for re-assignment, which the latter refused because his license was due for renewal. It then sent letters to Ibon requiring him to report for work, but he did not show up. Hence, Genghis Khan was surprised to receive summons regarding the complaint for illegal dismissal.
In its November 29, 2011 Decision, the Labor Arbiter (LA) declared Ibon to have been constructively dismissed. Aggrieved, the Genghis Khan appealed to the NLRC. NLRC reversed and set aside the decision of the LA. Undaunted, Genghis Khan filed a petition for certiorari before the CA. The CA affirmed the NLRC finding that the Ibon was not constructively dismissed. It wrote that the evidence on record showed that Ibon was required to report back to work and that on October 21, 2010, he was offered a new assignment, which he refused. The CA concluded that there was no dismissal to speak of as it was Ibon who manifested his lack of interest in going back to work.
Whether petitioner was not illegally dismissed from employment.
Petitioner was last deployed on October 4, 2010. Thus, it was incumbent upon the respondent to show that he was redeployed within six (6) months from the said date. Otherwise, the petitioner would be deemed to have been constructively dismissed.
Respondent could not rely on its letter requiring petitioner to report back to work to refute a finding of constructive dismissal. Respondent should have deployed petitioner to a specific client within six (6) months from his last assignment. The correspondence allegedly sent to the petitioner merely required him to explain why he did not report to work. He was never assigned to a particular client. Thus, even if the petitioner actually received the letters of respondent, he was still constructively dismissed because none of these letters indicated his reassignment to another client.
Further, petitioner's refusal to accept the offer of reinstatement could not have the effect of validating an otherwise constructive dismissal considering that the same was made only after petitioner had filed a case for illegal dismissal. Further, at the time the offer for reinstatement was made, petitioner's constructive dismissal had long been consummated. Such belated gesture does not absolve the respondent from the consequences of petitioner's dismissal.