Title
Lusabia vs. Super K Drug Corp.
Case
G.R. No. 223314
Decision Date
Jul 15, 2020
Employees of Super K Drug Store filed a labor complaint alleging illegal dismissal, underpayment, and illegal deductions. The Supreme Court ruled in their favor, finding illegal dismissal due to lack of due process and awarding back wages, separation pay, and reimbursement of deductions.
illegal dismissal
underpayment
court ruling
A

Case Digest (G.R. No. 203028)

Facts:

  • Parties and employment relations
    • Petitioners Robe Ann B. Lusabia, Percival Contreras, Nida Acsayan, Flor Alimonsurin, Lito Denaga, Reggie Vergabera, and Sheila Marie A. Barrera were employees of SUPER K Drug Corporation.
    • Respondents were SUPER K Drug Corporation, Kristine Y. Garcellano (Kristine), and Marco Y. Garcellano (Marco).
    • The store SUPER K Drug Store was owned by private respondents Kristine and Marco.
    • Petitioners were hired on separate occasions from 2009 to 2011.
    • Specific hiring/transfers within the relevant period included:
1) Alimonsurin hired on January 31, 2007; Acsayan on November 17, 2007; Vergabera on August 4, 2010; Contreras on August 15, 2010; Barrera on January 6, 2011. 2) Lusabia and Denaga were transferred to the New Farmers Plaza Branch in March 2011 and June 2011, respectively.
  • The record stated that Lusabia and Denaga were originally assigned to the Capiz, Roxas branch, and that payroll evidence varied by branch.
  • Petitioners’ daily wage in January 2012 ranged from P350.00 to P400.00.
  • Petitioners’ allegations on wages and workplace practices
    • Petitioners commonly claimed they did not receive copies of their pay slips but were forced to sign the payroll.
    • Petitioners alleged that the payroll showed a higher wage amount than what they actually received.
    • Petitioners stated that when they refused to sign the payroll due to inaccuracy, their supervisor threatened that they would not be paid their salaries.
    • Petitioners alleged illegal deductions from their salary:
1) They were made to shoulder amounts for every item lost at the drugstore due to theft and robberies. 2) Their pleas for assignment of a security guard remained unheeded.
  • Petitioners also alleged deductions of P500.00 as a cash bond:
1) The cash bond was often released in full at the end of every year. 2) Beginning 2010, private respondent no longer released the deducted cash bonds.
  • Filing of labor complaint and alleged forced withdrawal
    • In January 2012, petitioners filed a labor complaint for money claims before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) under the Single Entry Approach (SENA).
    • Before the conclusion of the NLRC-SENA proceedings:
1) Petitioner Lusabia was instructed to proceed to Kristine’s residence. 2) Lusabia claimed Kristine forced her to withdraw the labor complaint or face dismissal.
  • Petitioners Barrera and Contreras allegedly received similar orders on another occasion.
  • The three refused to withdraw their labor complaints.
  • Petitioners alleged that as a result, they were dismissed and prohibited from entering the work premises.
  • Petitioners alleged that if they tried to return to work, they were threatened with criminal charges for trespassing.
  • Allegations during the NLRC-SENA proceedings and subsequent actions
    • After a second hearing before the NLRC-SENA, Kristine allegedly announced willingness to pay salary differentials but no overtime pay.
    • Petitioners then went to the Trade Union Congress of the Philippines (TUCP) for assistance in filing a labor complaint with the NLRC.
    • Petitioners alleged that upon Kristine’s knowledge of this development, the remaining four petitioners—Acsayan, Alimonsurin, Denaga, and Vergabera—were also dismissed.
    • Petitioners amended their complaint to include illegal dismissal as one of the charges against the company and its owners.
  • Respondents’ denial and “return to work” notices
    • Respondents claimed petitioners were not prohibited from reporting to work.
    • Respondents asserted that on February 1, 2012, petitioners no longer reported for work.
    • Respondents claimed they sent Return to Work Notices by registered mail during the pendency of the NLRC-SENA case hoping grievances would be resolved.
    • Respondents claimed none of the petitioners replied to the notices.
    • Respondents stated no settlement was agreed upon at the NLRC-SENA.
    • Respondents asserted petitioners failed to report for work.
  • Labor Arbiter proceedings and rulings
    • The Labor Arbiter (LA) dismissed the complaint in a Decision dated July 27, 2012.
    • On illegal dismissal:
1) The LA held that the fact of dismissal was not established. 2) The LA found notices to return to work were duly sent. 3) The LA reasoned that if petitioners were dismissed, the company would not have sent return to work notices. 4) Petitioners did not deny the existence of the notices but did not explain their failure to comply with directives. 5) The LA considered petitioners’ claims of denial of entry as self-serving. 6) The LA found that the supporting affidavit from a TUCP employee was based on an interview with petitioners and lacked personal knowledge.
  • On money claims:
1) The LA denied the money claims. 2) The LA held respondents presented voluminous records showing salary payments in accordance with law. 3) The LA held that affidavits of former employees were hearsay and did not repudiate payroll documents. 4) The LA found petitioners were duly paid the correct wages and benefits. 5) On alleged salary deductions for lost items, the LA denied the claim for lack of proof that theft and robberies occurred.
  • NLRC reversal
    • Petitioners appealed.
    • The NLRC, in a Decision dated March 27, 2013, reversed and set aside the LA Decision.
    • On illegal dismissal and abandonment:
1) The NLRC found petitioners did not abandon employment. 2) The NLRC reasoned that immediately filing a labor complaint was inconsistent with abandoning employment. 3) The NLRC found petitioners were prevented from returning to work based on incidents described and the TUCP employee affidavit. 4) The NLRC stated that although notices dated February 6, 2012 and February 27, 2012 were sent via registered mail, there was no proof the same were received by petitioners. 5) The NLRC noted that DOLE hearings and conciliatory proceedings occurred on: 1) February 3, 10, and 22, 2012; 2) March 22 and 29, 2012; and 3) April 17 and 24, 2012. 6) The NLRC observed petitioners appeared in these proceedings. 7) The NLRC held respondents could have easily furnished petitioners the notices or return to work orders on those dates, but did not. 8) The NLRC found this suspicious and treated the notices as afterthoughts. 9) The NLRC found respondents failed to observe the twin notice rule, hence petitioners were illegally dismissed. 10) The NLRC found the SSS Employee Static Information reflected underpayment, and that the LA erred by relying on payroll documents being disputed.
  • On reliefs:
1) The NLRC ordered reinstatement, payment of back wages, salary differentials, and labor benefits. 2) The NLRC ordered reimbursement of illegal deductions and unreleased cash bonds. 3) The NLRC held petitioners were entitled to unpaid salaries, 13th month pay, and commutation of service incentive leave.
  • CA certiorari
    • Respondents filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals.
    • On September 29, 2015, the CA reinstated the LA Decision.
    • On illegal dismissal:
1) The CA held respondents pro...(Subscriber-Only)

    ...continue reading
    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