Case Digest (G.R. No. 217732)
Facts:
Emilio S. Agcolicol, Jr. v. Jerwin Casino, G.R. No. 217732, June 15, 2016, Supreme Court Third Division, Velasco Jr., J., writing for the Court. The petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 assails the Court of Appeals Resolutions dated September 30, 2014 (CA‑G.R. SP No. 137026) and March 26, 2015 denying reconsideration, which affirmed the National Labor Relations Commission's (NLRC) April 30, 2014 Resolution in NLRC Case LAC No. 02-000498-14.
Jerwin Casino (respondent) was employed in 2009 by Emilio S. Agcolicol, Jr. (petitioner) at Kubong Sawali Restaurant as stock custodian and cook. After alleged theft involving company property, petitioner filed a criminal complaint for qualified theft on November 26, 2012 and, by Memorandum Order dated November 27, 2012 (effective November 28, 2012) signed by Human Resource Manager Henry Revilla, respondent and others were placed under indefinite preventive suspension pending investigation.
The criminal complaint was later dismissed by the City Prosecutor (records indicate dismissal on December 28, 2012). Respondent alleges he never was recalled to work; instead, a January 10, 2013 letter addressed to co‑employee Rosendo Lomboy (but apparently relied on by Casino) asked Lomboy to explain alleged AWOL and pilferage. On May 17, 2013 Casino filed with the NLRC a complaint for illegal dismissal, illegal suspension, and nonpayment of monetary benefits (Labor Arbiter docketed as NLRC RAB Case No. CAR‑05‑0174‑13).
Proceedings diverged: in Lomboy’s earlier‑filed case (NLRC RAB‑CAR‑03‑0080‑13), the Labor Arbiter found illegal dismissal in favor of Lomboy, but the NLRC First Division reversed and ruled Lomboy was not illegally dismissed, describing the January 10, 2013 letter as an opportunity to explain absence and not a termination. In Casino’s case, Labor Arbiter Monroe C. Tabingan (Decision dated January 14, 2014) found Casino constructively dismissed and awarded separation pay, backwages and other monetary benefits; the NLRC Second Division affirmed by Resolution dated April 30, 2014. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration before the NLRC was denied (July 8, 2014), after which he filed a Rule 65 petition to the Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals denied relief, holding the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC findings were supported by substantial evidence: the memorandum imposed an indefinite preventive suspension...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in affirming the NLRC's finding that Jerwin Casino was illegally (constructively) dismissed?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in failing to reconcile the NLRC First and Second Division decisions that purportedly arose from the same set of facts?
- Did the CA and the NLRC err in not looking beyond the preventive suspension to the underlying cause of termination (the alleged theft) after finding the s...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)