Title
Agcolicol, Jr. vs. Casino
Case
G.R. No. 217732
Decision Date
Jun 15, 2016
Employee accused of theft, indefinitely suspended; criminal case dismissed. NLRC ruled constructive dismissal due to illegal suspension; SC affirmed, citing violation of 30-day suspension limit.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 217732)

Facts:

  1. Employment and Allegations of Theft

    • Respondent Jerwin CasiAo was hired by petitioner Emilio S. Agcolicol, Jr. in 2009 as a Stock Custodian and Cook at Kubong Sawali Restaurant.
    • In 2012, CasiAo and his co-employees were accused of conspiring in the theft of company property. A criminal complaint for qualified theft was filed against them on November 26, 2012.
    • On November 27, 2012, CasiAo and his co-employees were preventively suspended indefinitely pending investigation. The suspension was communicated through a Memorandum Order issued by the restaurant's Human Resource Manager, Henry Revilla.
  2. Dismissal of Criminal Complaint

    • The criminal complaint for qualified theft was later dismissed for lack of basis.
  3. January 10, 2013 Letter

    • On January 10, 2013, CasiAo received a letter addressed to his co-employee, Rosendo Lomboy, asking him to explain why he should not be terminated for being absent without leave (AWOL) and for grave misconduct related to the theft allegations.
    • CasiAo interpreted this letter as a directive for him to explain his absence, despite it being addressed to Lomboy.
  4. Filing of Labor Complaint

    • On May 17, 2013, CasiAo filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) for illegal dismissal, illegal suspension, and non-payment of monetary benefits.
    • Petitioner denied dismissing CasiAo, claiming that CasiAo stopped reporting for work after his co-employee was arrested, preventing the completion of the investigation.
  5. NLRC and Labor Arbiter Decisions

    • The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of CasiAo, finding that he was constructively dismissed due to the indefinite preventive suspension and awarded him monetary benefits.
    • The NLRC Second Division affirmed the Labor Arbiter's decision, holding that the indefinite suspension amounted to constructive dismissal.
  6. Conflict with Lomboy's Case

    • In a separate but related case involving CasiAo's co-employee, Rosendo Lomboy, the NLRC First Division ruled that Lomboy was not illegally dismissed, creating an apparent conflict in the NLRC's rulings.
  7. Court of Appeals (CA) Ruling

    • The CA affirmed the NLRC Second Division's decision, holding that the indefinite preventive suspension resulted in CasiAo's constructive dismissal.

Issue:

  1. Whether the CA erred in affirming the NLRC's decision that CasiAo was illegally dismissed.
  2. Whether the CA erred in not reconciling the conflicting decisions of the NLRC First and Second Divisions, which were based on the same set of facts.
  3. Whether the CA and NLRC erred in not considering the cause of termination beyond the suspension.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA's decision. The Court held that:

  1. CasiAo was constructively dismissed due to the imposition of an indefinite preventive suspension, which violated the 30-day limit under the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code.
  2. The CA correctly affirmed the NLRC's ruling, as the indefinite suspension, coupled with the lack of a return-to-work order after the dismissal of the criminal case, amounted to constructive dismissal.
  3. The alleged conflict between the NLRC's rulings in CasiAo's and Lomboy's cases was irrelevant, as the cases involved different parties and circumstances.

Ratio:

  • (Unlock)

Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.