G.R. No. 214940 - Maria De Leon Transportation, Inc. vs. Macuray

Respondent Daniel M. Macuray was employed by petitioner Maria De Leon Transportation, Inc. as a bus driver since April 1991. He rendered 18 years of service on a commission basis under a “no work, no pay” and “per travel, per trip” system.
His monthly remuneration was based on commissions, with claims indicating payments averaging P10,000.00 per month, though he also asserted entitlements based on a commission of P20,000.00.

In his complaint filed on November 21, 2011, respondent alleged illegal dismissal by petitioner.
He stated that in November 2009, the bus dispatcher failed to assign him a bus without any apparent reason, and the dispatcher subsequently informed him that he was considered AWOL (absent without leave) without proper notice.
Respondent claimed he continuously followed up for a period of one month and even for about six months in 2010 regarding his employment status, yet he received no formal notice or explanation from management.
He alleged that he felt betrayed after 18 years of service, and he claimed that he was not given any due benefits and was charged for gasoline expenses.
Accordingly, his relief prayers encompassed backwages, separation pay, retirement pay, 13th month pay, moral damages, exemplary damages, nominal damages, attorney’s fees, and the costs of suit.

Petitioner contended that respondent was hired on a commission basis and that his status was akin to “no work, no pay” without the guarantee of a regular salary.
It was asserted that respondent effectively abandoned his employment as he failed to report for work after March 31, 2009, choosing instead to pursue a position driving his family’s truck.
Petitioner maintained that there was no termination or dismissal, but rather an informal voluntary resignation or abandonment, which was a common and implicitly sanctioned practice among its drivers.
The defense further contested respondent’s claim of follow-ups, arguing that if he had indeed inquired about his status, he should have approached management directly – a fact refuted by his failure to specify any such meetings.
Additional arguments included allegations that respondent’s witnesses were biased and that his submissions contained inconsistencies regarding the dates of dismissal and his age.

The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision on August 24, 2012, dismissing the case for lack of merit based on evidentiary inconsistencies (e.g., respondent’s unclear timeline of dismissal and conflicting references to his age).
The NLRC modified the Labor Arbiter’s judgment on December 28, 2012, awarding respondent P50,000.00 as financial assistance. The NLRC found that respondent’s failure to report for work starting March 31, 2009, evidenced a voluntary abandonment of employment, although noting that absence alone does not necessarily prove abandonment.
A subsequent Motion for Reconsideration filed by respondent before the NLRC was denied in March 2013.

Respondent filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA) challenging the NLRC and Labor Arbiter dispositions.
On March 17, 2014, the CA reversed earlier determinations by declaring respondent was, in fact, illegally dismissed.
The CA found that the onus to prove a valid cause for dismissal rested on the petitioner and that no such evidence was presented, noting this as a case of constructive dismissal.
The CA further ruled that since respondent had 18 years of service and was nearing retirement (being 58 or 62 years old during critical periods), reinstatement was impractical; instead, he was entitled to separation pay, full backwages (computed from November 2009 to December 28, 2012), retirement benefits, and additional monetary claims including service incentive leave, moral, exemplary, nominal damages, and attorney’s fees.
A Motion for Reconsideration filed by the CA was also denied on September 17, 2014.
Petitioner later filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari challenging both procedural and substantive findings, which eventually led the Supreme Court to resolve the issues in this case.

Whether respondent’s cessation of reporting for work constituted an illegal (constructive) dismissal by petitioner or was merely a voluntary abandonment of employment facilitated by a common company practice.
Whether the alleged follow-ups by respondent about his work status were sufficient to establish that he sought to continue his employment.

Whether the CA erred in not dismissing respondent’s petition on procedural grounds, including issues such as the allegedly belated filing beyond the 60-day reglementary period, non-payment of docket fees, and the omission of material dates in the petition.

Whether respondent is entitled to separation pay, full backwages, retirement benefits, service incentive leave pay, and various forms of damages (moral, exemplary, nominal) as well as attorney’s fees, given the nature of his departure from employment.
Whether the computation of benefits—for example, awarding one month’s salary for every year of service versus one-half month’s salary—was correctly established under applicable laws and collective bargaining agreements.