Case Digest (G.R. No. 235725)
Facts:
Joel A. Tapia v. GA2 Pharmaceutical, Inc., G.R. No. 235725, September 28, 2022, Supreme Court Second Division, Lazaro-Javier, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Joel A. Tapia alleged he was employed by respondent GA2 Pharmaceutical, Inc. starting July 2013 as a pharmacist (monthly pay P16,000), later assigned as a roving pharmacist with delivery and supervisory duties; he submitted July–August 2013 payslips and an FDA license showing his name as assigned pharmacist of GA2’s Mandaluyong branch. Tapia claimed that on June 11, 2015 he was excused from a delivery because he was unwell and because the company car was subject to number coding; General Manager Lancy Vijay Saldanha allegedly scolded him, ordered the Personnel Officer to draft a resignation letter, and when Tapia refused to sign, ordered him to go home and never return.
Tapia filed a SEnA complaint on June 15, 2015 and subsequently a formal labor complaint (initially for constructive dismissal, later amended to illegal dismissal) with claims for backwages, separation pay, overtime, holiday pay, 13th month pay, illegal deductions, moral/exemplary damages and attorney’s fees (docketed NLRC-NCR Case No. 07-08739-15). GA2 countered that Tapia was a probationary pharmacist/driver hired March 25, 2015 under a probationary contract, that he left work after an altercation on June 9, 2015, refused to return calls, and that it mailed a notice to explain (NTE).
Labor Arbiter Joanne G. Hernandez-Lazo dismissed Tapia’s complaint by decision dated January 29, 2016, finding Tapia failed to prove dismissal and accepting GA2’s NTE and employee affidavits. The NLRC reversed by decision dated June 30, 2016, declaring Tapia illegally dismissed and ordering separation pay and backwages until finality, plus attorney’s fees (10% of award), finding Tapia’s account credible, GA2’s employee affidavits self-serving, no proof of receipt of the NTE, the probationary claim an afterthought, and that Tapia’s prompt action negated abandonment. GA2’s motion for reconsideration was denied on August 16, 2016.
GA2 then appealed to the Court of Appeals in CA‑G.R. SP No. 148274; the Court of Appeals by decision dated July 12, 2017 partially granted GA2’s petition and ordered Tapia’s reinstatement without backwages, finding Tapia failed to prove dismissal and calling his allegations self-serving, while also rejecting GA2’s abandonment charge and its probationary claim for lack of proof that standards were explained. Tapia’s motion for reconsideration before the CA was denied on October 27, 2017.
Tapia filed a Rule 45 petition with the Supreme Court seeking reinstatement of the NLRC decision and monetary claims. The Supreme ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was petitioner Joel A. Tapia illegally dismissed from employment?
- Did GA2 prove that Tapia was a probationary employee or that he abandoned his work such that the dismissal (if any) was lawful?
- Is Tapia entitled to the monetary reliefs (backwages, separation pay, attorney’s fees) and legal inter...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)