G.R. No. 235725 - Joel A. Tapia vs. GA2 Pharmaceutical, Inc.

Petitioner Joel A. Tapia was employed by GA2 Pharmaceutical, Inc. as a pharmacist.
Evidence of his employment includes July and August 2013 payroll slips and an FDA license indicating his assignment as the resident pharmacist at GA2’s Mandaluyong branch.
GA2, however, later contended that Tapia was hired on March 25, 2015, under a probationary contract, asserting that his performance deteriorated after one month and that conflicts with co-employees were evident.

Tapia’s regular work schedule was from 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM on weekdays and from 8:00 AM to 3:00 PM on Saturdays.
Besides his primary role as a pharmacist, he was tasked with supervising operations in various branches, as well as product delivery and sales collection duties.

On June 11, 2015, Tapia reported feeling unwell and requested to be excused from his delivery task, citing the vehicle’s unavailability due to a number coding scheme.
GA2’s General Manager, Lancy Vijay Saldanha, reprimanded him and ordered the Personnel Officer to prepare a resignation letter.
When Tapia refused to sign the resignation letter, Saldanha allegedly ordered him to go home and “never come back.”
Interpreting these acts as an overt dismissal, Tapia filed an illegal dismissal complaint on June 15, 2015, later amending his cause from constructive dismissal to illegal dismissal.

The Labor Arbiter dismissed Tapia’s complaint for lack of merit on January 29, 2016, relying on GA2’s Notice to Explain (NTE) and affidavits from co-employees.
The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the Labor Arbiter’s decision on June 30, 2016, ruling that Tapia had been illegally dismissed and ordering payment of separation pay, backwages, and attorney’s fees.
The Court of Appeals, by a Decision dated July 12, 2017, partially granted GA2’s petition for certiorari by ordering Tapia’s reinstatement (without backwages), based largely on its finding that Tapia failed to prove dismissal; his allegations were regarded as self-serving and unsupported by credible evidence.
Tapia’s motion for reconsideration of the Court of Appeals decision was denied in a Resolution dated October 27, 2017.

Tapia filed a petition under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking affirmative relief, asserting his claim of illegal dismissal and entitlement to monetary claims.
GA2’s counsel later moved for additional time to file required comments concerning other procedural directives, resulting in further court orders regarding correspondence and compliance.
Despite procedural delays and issues with the service and location of documents, the court noted GA2’s failure to timely file its comment, effectively waiving its opportunity to do so.

Tapia’s evidence, notably his detailed account of the events on June 11, 2015, and corroborating documents (payroll slips, FDA license), supported his claim that his dismissal was the direct result of an authoritative verbal order.
Evidence contrary to Tapia’s version, such as affidavits from co-employees and the disputed probationary contract, was deemed self-serving or presented too late to outweigh his evidence.

Whether Tapia’s immediate filing of a complaint negated the allegation of abandonment and established that he was, in fact, dismissed rather than having voluntarily left work.
Whether the verbal instruction from his immediate superior, with authority to terminate, constituted an overt act of dismissal.

Whether Tapia’s documentary evidence (payroll slips, assignment on the FDA license) sufficiently established that his employment commenced in July 2013, contrary to GA2’s presentation of a probationary contract indicating a March 2015 start date.
The effect of supporting and conflicting testimonies—the self-serving affidavits of co-employees versus Tapia’s detailed account—and whether they met the clear, positive, and convincing standard required to show illegal dismissal.

Whether the issuance and receipt (or non-receipt) of the Notice to Explain (NTE) could be considered as evidence of proper procedure versus a self-serving act to characterize the dismissal as voluntary or justified.
Whether GA2’s delayed evidence and affidavits, submitted on motion for reconsideration, sufficiently countered Tapia’s claim of illegal dismissal.

Whether a verbal command not to report for work by an immediate supervisor with termination authority can be legally construed as a valid act of dismissal.
The comparison with precedential cases (e.g., Reyes v. Global Beer Below Zero, Inc., and Noblejas v. Italian Maritime Academy Phils., Inc.) to determine if the facts warranted a legal conclusion of dismissal.