Case Digest (G.R. No. 114988)
Facts:
The case involves petitioners Catalino Bontia, Resurreccion Lozada, and Donato Dutaro against respondents National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), Consolidated Plywood Industries, Inc., and Henry Wee. The events leading to the case unfolded between June 1987 and February 29, 1992, when the petitioners were employed by the private respondents in various capacities: Bontia as a truck driver, Lozada as a logging foreman, and Dutaro as a welder. On January 4, 1992, Dutaro was compelled to sign an application for forced leave without pay, which included a clause stating that failure to report on the expiration date of the leave would be considered voluntary resignation. Following this, he continued to report for work but was informed there was no available work. Similarly, Bontia and Lozada were asked to sign applications for indefinite forced leave on February 29, 1992, which they refused, resulting in their exclusion from the workplace. The petitioners found themselves unable...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 114988)
Facts:
Employment Details:
- Catalino Bontia: Employed as a truck driver from June 1987 to February 29, 1992, with a daily wage of P104.00.
- Resurrecion Lozada: Worked as a logging foreman from September 1990 to February 29, 1992, with a daily wage of P125.00.
- Donato Dutaro: Employed as a welder from January 1987 to January 4, 1992, with a daily wage of P106.00.
Forced Leave Without Pay:
- On January 4, 1992, Dutaro was forced to sign an application for leave without pay, with no expiration date and a clause stating that failure to report after the leave would be considered voluntary resignation.
- On February 29, 1992, Bontia and Lozada were asked to sign similar applications for indefinite forced leave without pay, which they refused. Consequently, they were barred from working or entering company premises.
Employment Status and Uncertainty:
- Petitioners were unable to seek other employment due to lack of clearance from the company and the uncertainty of their recall date.
- They were not informed of any six-month limit on the forced leave, nor were they given separation pay, unlike other employees.
Company’s Defense:
- Private respondents claimed they suspended operations due to business reverses caused by a government-imposed total log ban.
- They argued that petitioners were temporarily laid off and would be rehired once operations resumed.
Labor Arbiter’s Decision:
- The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the petitioners, declaring their dismissal illegal and ordering payment of back wages and reinstatement or separation pay.
NLRC’s Reversal:
- The NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter’s decision, dismissing the complaint and declaring petitioners guilty of "quitting" under Article 285(a) of the Labor Code.
Issue:
- (Unlock)
Ruling:
- (Unlock)
Ratio:
Constructive Dismissal:
- Constructive dismissal occurs when an employer’s actions make continued employment intolerable, forcing the employee to resign. The indefinite forced leave without pay, coupled with the lack of clear communication, constituted constructive dismissal.
Legal Requirements for Suspension and Layoff:
- Employers must comply with legal requirements when suspending operations or laying off employees, including providing proper notice, separation pay, and clear information about the employees’ status. Failure to do so renders the dismissal illegal.
Abandonment Requires Intent:
- Abandonment requires a clear and deliberate intent to discontinue employment. The petitioners’ actions, including filing a complaint for constructive dismissal, demonstrated their intent to continue employment, negating any claim of abandonment.
Protection of Employee Rights:
- Labor laws protect employees from arbitrary and unjust dismissal. Employers must exercise management prerogatives in good faith and in compliance with legal requirements. Doubts in labor cases are resolved in favor of the employee.