Case Digest (G.R. No. 94237)
Facts:
The case involves Building Care Corporation as the petitioner and the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and Rogelio Rodil as respondents. The events leading to the case began when Rogelio Rodil, the private respondent, filed a complaint against Building Care Corporation on April 19, 1988, alleging illegal dismissal, underpayment, and non-payment of legal holiday pay. Rodil claimed that he was suspended without just cause on February 11, 1988, by his supervisor, H. Silvestre, and that the suspension was illegal due to a lack of due process. Following the suspension, Rodil asserted that he was not assigned any work despite his repeated inquiries. He detailed his attempts to seek work from various supervisors, all of which were unsuccessful.
Building Care Corporation, on the other hand, contended that Rodil was not dismissed but had abandoned his job after taking a long absence without leave. The company argued that Rodil was given opportunities to work but failed to...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 94237)
Facts:
Employment and Allegations
- Private respondent Rogelio Rodil was employed by petitioner Building Care Corporation.
- Rodil alleged that his wages, 13th month pay, and service incentive leave pay were unpaid.
- He claimed he was not paid for work rendered during legal holidays.
- On February 11, 1988, he was suspended for one week by his supervisor, H. Silvestre, without just cause or due process.
- After the suspension, he was not given any assignments despite repeated follow-ups.
Respondent’s Defense
- Petitioner Building Care Corporation contended that Rodil was paid his wages and holiday pay in accordance with the law.
- It admitted a delay in complying with R.A. 6640 due to client delays in approving adjusted contract rates.
- Petitioner claimed Rodil was suspended for failing to report to his supervisor after being instructed twice.
- It alleged that Rodil took a long absence without leave starting February 12, 1988, and only showed up on March 28, 1988.
- Petitioner claimed Rodil was advised of FEBTC’s decision not to accept him anymore and was offered a temporary assignment, which he declined.
Complainant’s Rebuttal
- Rodil maintained that he performed his work properly.
- He explained his absences were due to illness (his own and his wife’s) and the illegal suspension.
- He denied being given any assignments after the suspension and claimed he was denied due process.
Procedural History
- On April 19, 1988, Rodil filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, underpayment, and non-payment of legal holiday pay.
- The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Rodil, declaring his suspension and dismissal illegal and ordering reinstatement with backwages, holiday pay, salary differentials, and attorney’s fees.
- The NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s decision.
Issue:
- Whether the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the Labor Arbiter’s decision.
- Whether the Labor Arbiter and NLRC erred in finding that Rodil was illegally dismissed.
- Whether the burden of proving dismissal and just cause for termination was properly allocated.
- Whether the award of holiday pay, salary differentials, and attorney’s fees was justified.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)