Allan John Uy Reyes v. Global Beer Below Zero, Inc. - G.R. No. 222816 - October 4, 2017

Facts:

Petitioner Reyes was employed as Operations Manager of respondent Global from January 2009 to January 2012. He was constructively dismissed from work by his immediate and direct supervisor, Vincon Co Say, for allegedly being late to work on multiple occasions and for incurring absences from work without prior notice. Petitioner also received text messages from his supervisor alluding to his impending termination. Co Say and petitioner met one time at Starbucks Waltermart where the former told the latter that he could no longer report for work and insisted that the latter should file a resignation letter. Because of this, petitioner instituted a complaint for constructive illegal dismissal with the DOLE.

The Labor Arbiter ruled in favour of petitioner while the NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s ruling. The case was elevated to the Court of Appeals which reversed and set aside the NLRC ruling.

Issue:

Whether the Court of Appeals erred when it reversed and set aside the NLRC ruling and ruled that petitioner was not illegally dismissed from respondent Global

Ruling:

The petition was granted. The Court affirmed the NLRC ruling and found that petitioner was illegally dismissed.

As a general rule, only questions of law are reviewable in a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. However, the exceptions are the following:

1. When the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises, or conjectures;
2. When the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible;
3. When there is grave abuse of discretion;
4. When the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts;
5. When the findings of fact are conflicting;
6. When in making findings, the Court of Appeals went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee;
7. When the findings are contrary to that of the trial court;
8. When the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are bared;
9. When the facts set forth in the petition, as well as in petitioner’s main and reply briefs, are not disputed by respondent;
10. When the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record;
11. When the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion

Since the case falls under one of the exceptions, the petition for review is proper.

The verbal notice of termination given by his immediate and direct supervisor which directed petitioner not to report for work is not valid and legal. Two requisites must concur to constitute valid dismissal from employment which are (1) dismissal must be for just and valid cause; and (2) the employee must be afforded an opportunity to be heard and to defend himself.

The text messages received by petitioner were also corroborative. In labor cases, rules of procedure should not be applied in a very rigid and technical sense where the ends of substantial justice shall be better served. Hence the application of technical rules may be relaxed.

In illegal dismissal cases, the burden of proof is upon the employer to show by substantial evidence that employee’s termination from service is for a just and valid cause.

Abandonment requires the deliberate, unjustified refusal of the employee to resume his employment, without any intention of returning. Two factors must be present to constitute abandonment which are (1) failure to report for work or absence without valid or justifiable reason, and (2) a clear intention to sever employer-employee relationship, with the second element as the more determinative factor being manifested by some overt acts.

In this case, abandonment of work by petitioner was not proven. It is settled that employees who take steps to protest their dismissal cannot logically be said to have abandoned their work.