G.R. No. 159418-19 - De Joya vs. Jail Warden of Batangas City

Petitioner Noel G. Guinto filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against the respondents: Sto. Niao Long-Zeny Consignee, its owner Angelo Salangsang, and his wife/manager Zenaida Salangsang.
The complainant alleged that he was a regular employee of the respondents since August 1997, initially serving as a warehouseman and later as a “sizer” handling the sorting and arrangement of aquatic animals.
His employment commenced in 1997 and lasted until his termination in November 2015, with various tasks including cleaning and other assigned duties by the respondents.

On November 27, 2015, petitioner alleged that Zenaida Salangsang verbally instructed him not to report to work; the following morning, he received a text message reinforcing this instruction.
Petitioner presented several pieces of evidence to establish his employment relationship with the respondents:

A Certification issued by Angelo Salangsang stating his employment from August 1997 “up to present.”
A posted work schedule at the respondents’ premises.
Sinumpaang Salaysay by a dispatcher, Rizalito G. Alfonso, affirming his employment status.
Payslips evidencing salary payments.
A Katunayan and accompanying affidavits from porters attesting that he was not a porter but a regular employee.

There was no employer-employee relationship and that petitioner was actually a porter/sizer rendering services to multiple fishpond owners.
The Certification was an “accommodation document” prepared solely for the petitioner’s application for work abroad.
Documentary evidence such as identification cards and handwritten notes did not substantiate his claim of regular employment or salary payments.

The Labor Arbiter (LA) initially ruled in favor of petitioner, finding him to be a regular employee and holding that he was illegally dismissed, thus awarding separation pay, service incentive leave pay, 13th month pay, and attorney’s fees.
The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reviewed the case:

Affirmed petitioner’s status as a regular employee based on the submitted evidence.
However, reversed the LA’s finding of illegal dismissal for lack of sufficient evidence in proving actual termination, thereby ordering his reinstatement without backwages, awarding only service incentive leave pay and attorney’s fees; the awards for separation pay and 13th month pay were deleted.

The Court of Appeals (CA) sustained the NLRC ruling in all respects, denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
Petitioner then elevated the case via a Petition for Certiorari challenging the factual findings and alleged grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC and the CA.

His status as a regular employee was firmly established and had attained finality.
The verbal instructions and text message from the respondents constituted an illegal dismissal.
He was entitled to full backwages, separation pay (in lieu of reinstatement), service incentive leave pay, 13th month pay, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees.

He further argued that silence by the respondents on the matter of his dismissal (per Section 11, Rule 8 of the Rules of Court) amounted to an admission of the allegations.
Respondents countered on appeal by asserting that:

The petition was outside the scope of an appeal under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
There was a lack of cogent evidence supporting an illegal dismissal, as the petitioner failed to substantiate the actual termination of his employment.

Whether the verbal instruction and text message from Zenaida Salangsang and her representative amount to a dismissal.
Whether respondents’ failure to rebut the petitioner’s allegations constitutes an admission of dismissal under Section 11, Rule 8 of the Rules of Court.

Whether the findings of the NLRC and the CA, which held that petitioner failed to prove his dismissal and thus entitled him only to limited relief, were supported by substantial evidence.

Whether there exists grave abuse of discretion in reversing the Labor Arbiter’s ruling on illegal dismissal.
Whether petitioner is entitled to full backwages, separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, service incentive leave pay, 13th month pay, and attorney’s fees.

The proper remedy in cases where an employee is deemed illegally dismissed, specifically focusing on the applicability (or non-applicability) of the doctrine of strained relations.