Case Digest (G.R. No. 167751)
Facts:
Harpoon Marine Services, Inc. and Jose Lido T. Rosit v. Fernan H. Francisco, G.R. No. 167751, March 02, 2011, Supreme Court First Division, Del Castillo, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Harpoon Marine Services, Inc. (Harpoon), a shipbuilding and ship-repair company, employed respondent Fernan H. Francisco as Yard Supervisor beginning in 1992; respondent left in 1998 but was rehired in 1999 to his prior position. Petitioner Jose Lido T. Rosit was Harpoon’s President and CEO. On June 15, 2001, respondent contends he was told by Rosit that the company could no longer afford his salary and that he would receive separation pay and commissions; he continued to report for work but a few days later was barred from entering the company premises. Respondent attempted to collect separation pay and alleged commissions, sent a demand letter of September 24, 2001 for P70,000 (commissions for seven vessels), and filed an illegal dismissal complaint on October 24, 2001 seeking backwages, separation pay, unpaid commissions, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees.
Petitioners claimed they never terminated respondent but warned him on June 15, 2001 about excessive absences and tardiness shown in his time card for June 1–15, 2001; they alleged respondent thereafter remained absent, went AWOL beginning June 22, 2001, and abandoned his work, prompting several memoranda and a Notice of Termination dated July 30, 2001. Respondent denied habitual absenteeism, explained the three-day absence on the time card as ordered by Rosit during Rosit’s hospitalization, produced a co-worker’s attestation that he reported until June 20, 2001, and presented two check vouchers as proof of commissions.
The Labor Arbiter (May 17, 2002) found respondent validly dismissed for unjustified absences and tardiness, but awarded commissions of P70,000 and 10% attorney’s fees for withholding of commissions while dismissing other claims. Both parties appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). In its March 31, 2003 Decision the NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s award of commissions but deleted attorney’s fees for lack of bad faith. Respondent asked the NLRC to resolve his cross-appeal while petitioners moved for reconsideration contesting the vouchers’ authenticity.
In its June 30, 2003 modified Decision the NLRC reversed course on dismissal, finding respondent was illegally dismissed because the evidence (time card showing only three absences in the relevant period) was insufficient to establish habitual absenteeism, and because petitioners failed to prove the memoranda were actually sent/received; it therefore awarded backwages, separation pay, and confirmed the P70,000 commission award (but still omitted attorney’s fees). Petitioners sought certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA).
The CA, in a Decision dated January...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in failing to correct the findings and conclusions of the NLRC and the Labor Arbiter?
- Was respondent illegally dismissed and therefore entitled to backwages and separation pay despite petitioners’ claim of habitual absenteeism, AWOL, and abandonment?
- Is respondent entitled to commissions of P70,000 where the evidence offered were two check vouchers and an unsigned list of vessels?
- May petitioner Rosit be held personally and solidarily liable with Ha...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)