Facts:

The case revolves around Airborne Maintenance and Allied Services, Inc. (the petitioner) and its former employee, Arnulfo M. Egos (the respondent). On April 9, 1992, Egos was hired by Airborne as a janitor and assigned to the Balintawak Branch of Meralco, a client of Airborne. After nearly twenty years of service, the contract between Airborne and Meralco expired on June 30, 2011. A new contract was subsequently awarded to Landbees Corporation, which absorbed all employees of Airborne except for Egos, who was reportedly suffering from a heart ailment. In pursuit of his health, Egos sought a second medical opinion and obtained a certificate declaring him fit to work, which he presented to Airborne. However, this was disregarded, and upon attempting to report for duty, Egos was told there was no available work for him.

On August 5, 2011, feeling that he had been constructively dismissed, Egos filed a complaint against Airborne. In contrast, Airborne contended that Egos was never d

...

Facts:

Employment Relationship and Background

• Airborne Maintenance and Allied Services, Inc. (petitioner), along with Francis T. Ching, hired the respondent as a janitor on April 9, 1992.
• The respondent was deployed at the Balintawak Branch of Meralco, one of Airborne’s clients.
• After nearly twenty years, on June 30, 2011, the contract between Airborne and Meralco-Balintawak Branch expired. A new contract was awarded to Landbees Corporation, which absorbed all employees except the respondent.

Alleged Constructive Dismissal

• The respondent was allegedly excluded from the new absorption due to a claimed heart ailment.
• After consulting a different doctor, the respondent was declared fit to work and presented a valid medical certificate to Airborne.
• Despite his fitness for work and reporting for duty, the respondent was ignored by Airborne, which led him to file a complaint for constructive (illegal) dismissal on August 5, 2011.

Petitioner’s Contentions and Subsequent Actions

• Airborne contended that the respondent was not dismissed but rather placed on “floating status” after the termination of the contract with Meralco.
• The company maintained that it had directed all employees to report for reposting and, upon the respondent’s failure to do so, issued letters directing him to his new assignment at Meralco Commonwealth Business Center.
• Two letters, dated August 12, 2011 and September 21, 2011 respectively, were sent to the respondent’s last known address but were returned with the notation “RTS unknown,” allegedly due to an incomplete address.
• The petitioner additionally argued that the floating status was imposed in accordance with Article 301 (formerly Article 286) of the Labor Code, insinuating that a bona fide suspension of business operations justified such a measure.

Administrative and Judicial Proceedings

• On June 04, 2012, a Labor Arbiter rendered a decision dismissing the complaint for illegal/constructive dismissal.
• The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the Labor Arbiter’s decision on December 27, 2012, declaring that the respondent was indeed constructively dismissed.
• The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the NLRC’s decision in its Decision dated August 28, 2015 and Resolution dated April 10, 2013.
• Subsequent petitions for certiorari and motions for reconsideration by the petitioner did not reverse these findings, leading ultimately to the filing of a petition before the Supreme Court.

Issue:

• Whether, in affirming the NLRC’s decision that the respondent was constructively dismissed, the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion amounting either to lack of jurisdiction or excess thereof by assuming that the petitioner claimed abandonment as a defense.

• Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petitioner’s petition for certiorari by relying solely on what was described as erroneous factual and legal conclusions of the NLRC, notwithstanding established and unequivocal jurisprudence on the matter.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)