Title
Litex Glass and Aluminum Supply vs. Sanchez
Case
G.R. No. 198465
Decision Date
Apr 22, 2015
Sanchez, employed since 1994, claimed illegal dismissal after being scolded and refused work in 2008. Petitioners denied employment pre-2002, alleging abandonment. SC ruled illegal dismissal, awarded separation pay (from 2002), backwages, and attorney’s fees.
illegally dismissed
reinstatement
seniority rights
A

Case Digest (G.R. No. 201944)

Facts:

  • Background of the dispute
    • Petitioners were Litex Glass and Aluminum Supply and Ronald Ong-Sitco.
    • Respondent was Dominador B. Sanchez (Sanchez).
    • Sanchez filed a Complaint for illegal dismissal and non-payment of holiday pay, premium for holiday pay, service incentive leave pay and attorney’s fees.
    • The complaint was filed on February 18, 2009 before the Labor Arbiter and was docketed as NLRC NCR Case No. 02-02975-09.
  • Sanchez’s employment narrative and asserted dismissal
    • Sanchez alleged that since 1994, he was employed as driver and aluminum installer in several companies owned and managed by Ong-Sitco, with the last employer being Litex.
    • Sanchez averred that since February 1996, Ong-Sitco remitted his Social Security System (SSS) monthly contributions.
    • Sanchez asserted that he had no work-related offense that led to reprimand, suspension, or warning, and he had diligently served for about 15 years.
    • Sanchez stated that on December 23, 2008, Ong-Sitco and his wife scolded him and used insulting words, then ordered him to go on indefinite leave.
    • Sanchez left the premises after the incident, hoping the animosity would subside.
    • Sanchez returned on December 28, 2008 to talk to Ong-Sitco, but Ong-Sitco ignored him.
    • Sanchez returned on January 2, 2009 to discuss his employment status, but Ong-Sitco again refused to talk.
    • Sanchez repeated the effort about a week later, with the same result.
    • Sanchez filed the illegal dismissal case based on these events.
  • Petitioners’ memorandum letters and Sanchez’s noncompliance
    • After the complaint was filed, Sanchez received two memorandum-letters from petitioners.
    • The first memorandum-letter was dated January 7, 2009, mailed on February 23, 2009, and received by Sanchez on February 26, 2009.
    • The first memorandum-letter directed Sanchez to report for work and to explain his continued absence from December 22, 2008 to January 7, 2009, after he was allegedly verbally warned for:
1) going home early without justification on December 3, 2008; 2) exhibiting erratic behavior and threatening to file a case after being summoned to explain unjustified leave on December 9, 2008; and 3) unauthorized use of company vehicle for personal benefit on December 20, 2008.
  • The second memorandum-letter was dated January 22, 2009, sent on March 10, 2009, and received by Sanchez on March 22, 2009.
  • The second memorandum-letter warned that Sanchez’s refusal to follow the earlier directive to report and explain his continued absence within 24 hours would constitute abandonment of work.
  • Sanchez’s counsel, Atty. Osias M. Merioles, Jr., sent a letter dated March 20, 2009 stating that Sanchez would not report because the first memorandum-letter was a mere afterthought to cover up petitioners’ act of illegal termination.
  • Petitioners’ defenses and their factual version
    • Petitioners denied having employed Sanchez in 1994, stating that Litex was only registered on April 5, 2002.
    • Petitioners denied dismissing Sanchez and asserted that Sanchez abandoned his job by not reporting for work.
    • Petitioners claimed that the January 7, 2009 memorandum-letter was sent on January 8, 2009 to Sanchez’s last known address and that it was returned to sender.
    • Petitioners claimed that the January 22, 2009 memorandum-letter was sent on January 23, 2009 and not on March 10, 2009.
    • Petitioners characterized the memorandum-letters as notices to report for work and to explain alleged infractions committed on December 3, 9, and 20, 2009, and not termination letters.
    • Petitioners asserted that Sanchez’s refusal to comply was evidenced by counsel’s letter, which showed lack of interest to work.
    • Petitioners further claimed they had no reason to terminate Sanchez because Sanchez had pending obligations with the company: materials and money worth P39,449.20 and money amounting to P6,500.00.
  • Proceedings before the Labor Arbiter
    • The Labor Arbiter issued a Decision dated June 18, 2009 declaring Sanchez to have been illegally dismissed.
    • The Labor Arbiter found Sanchez’s version more credible.
    • The Labor Arbiter observed that the original registry receipts attached to the envelopes of the January 7 and January 22, 2009 memorandum-letters showed mailing dates of February 23, 2009 and March 10, 2009, respectively, which were after the complaint filing on February 18, 2009.
    • The Labor Arbiter concluded that the memorandum-letters were sent to “evade the consequences of illegal termination” by showing seeming compliance with notice and by demonstrating absence of dismissal.
    • The Labor Arbiter held the alleged infractions were insufficient to warrant dismissal.
    • The Labor Arbiter awarded separation pay computed from the date of hiring in 1994 up to the finality of the decision, and full backwages computed from the date of dismissal up to finality.
    • The Labor Arbiter also awarded holiday pay, service incentive leave pay, and attorney’s fees equivalent to 10% of the judgment award.
    • The Labor Arbiter dismissed all other claims for lack of merit.
  • Proceedings before the NLRC
    • Petitioners appealed to the NLRC and argued that:
1) Sanchez abandoned his work; 2) separation pay should not have been awarded because it was not sought and there was no strained relations; 3) separation pay was improperly computed using a 1994 start instead of 2002; 4) Sanchez’s alleged indebtedness to petitioners in the total amount of P45,494.20 should have been considered; and 5) attorney’s fees were improper due to absence of bad faith.
  • The NLRC issued a Resolution dated October 30, 2009 dismissing the appeal and affirming the Labor Arbiter’s judgment.
  • The NLRC ruled that:
1) Sanchez did not abandon his job since there was no showing of intention to resign or forego employment; 2) separation pay and other monetary awards were upheld; and 3) alleged obligations could not be offset because they were not fully substantiated and arose from a different contractual relation.
  • Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration reiterating earlier arguments and adding that backwages should be computed only until March 20, 2009 when Sanchez manif...(Subscriber-Only)

Issues:

  • Abandonment of work versus illegal dismissal
    • Whether Sanchez abandoned his employment such that petitioners could avoid liability for illegal dismissal.
    • Whether Sanchez’s alleged refusal to report for work made his prayer for reinstatement misleading.
  • Propriety and computation of separation pay
    • Whether separation pay may be sustained despite not being prayed for and despite asserted absence of allegations of strained relations in the pleadings and decision.
    • Whether separation pay must be computed only from 2002 when Sanchez allegedly began work, instead of from 1994.
  • Sufficiency of proof of dismissal
    • Whether Sanchez’s allegations were self-serving and insufficient to prove dismissal.
  • Other monetary awards
    • Whether Sanchez was entitled to holiday pay, service incentive leave pay, attorney’s fees, and full backwages. ...(Subscriber-Only)

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)
Unlock Full Case Digest

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms