G.R. No. 212096 - Nightowl Watchman and Security Agency, Inc. vs. Lumahan

In December 1996, Nightowl Watchman & Security Agency, Inc. (Nightowl) hired Nestor P. Lumahan as a security guard.
Lumahan’s assignment was at Steelworld Manufacturing Corporation (Steelworld).
Lumahan later filed a complaint alleging illegal dismissal together with claims for underpayment of wages, nonpayment of overtime, premium pay for holidays and rest days, service incentive leave, separation pay, damages, attorney’s fees, nonpayment of 13th month pay, and also illegal suspension.
In his pleadings, Lumahan admitted he did not report for work from May 16, 1999 to June 8, 1999, attributing his absence to a personal emergency (attending to his dying grandfather) despite asserting that Nightowl refused to grant him leave when requested.

Lumahan’s allegations involved various dates, initially indicating dismissal in May 1999, later amended to June 9, 1999, with inconsistency further noted when his position paper claimed that he was only told in December 1999 to seek another job.
Nightowl, however, contended that Lumahan abandoned his post by leaving at Steelworld on April 22, 1999 and failing to report back thereafter.
Despite Nightowl’s claim of abandonment, the absence of any formal dismissal action is highlighted as a crucial factual point.

On April 15, 2002, Labor Arbiter Pablo C. Espiritu, Jr. dismissed the illegal dismissal claim and ordered Nightowl to pay Lumahan various wage-related differentials based on the failure to rebut Lumahan’s money claims.
On December 15, 2004, Labor Arbiter Gaudencio P. Demaisip, Jr. ruled that Lumahan had been illegally dismissed, ordering backwages and separation pay in lieu of reinstatement while dismissing other money claims on merits.
Nightowl appealed the December 2004 decision.

On August 31, 2010, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the earlier finding of illegal dismissal, holding that no dismissal had occurred, and that Lumahan’s failure to return to work amounted to an “informal voluntary termination.”
The NLRC based its conclusion on documentary evidence, including payroll slips which indicated he was not present beyond April 22, 1999, and relied on the absence of a report-to-work notice to counter claims of illegal dismissal.
Lumahan’s subsequent petition for certiorari before the CA resulted in a September 18, 2013 decision reversing the NLRC ruling, finding grave abuse of discretion and awarding backwages and separation pay based on an assumption of illegal dismissal.
The CA’s decision was later contested by Nightowl, leading to the present petition for review on certiorari.

Nightowl argued that there was no actual dismissal since Lumahan never received a formal report-to-work notice and that the burden to prove dismissal was misplaced under the circumstances.
Nightowl further contended that the CA erred in overvaluing the findings of the labor arbiters, especially considering the conflicting factual determinations, and that its petition was in full compliance with Rule 45 requirements.
Conversely, Lumahan maintained that the failure to send a report-to-work notice effectively amounted to a constructive dismissal, and that his inconsistent claims notwithstanding, the evidence supported his claim for illegal dismissal.

Whether Nightowl’s petition for review on certiorari complied with the procedural requirements mandated by Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
Whether the petition was fatally defective for failing to attach all the pleadings and for not impleading the lower tribunal as required in other special civil actions.

Whether Nestor Lumahan was actually dismissed from employment or merely voluntarily abandoned his post.
Whether Nightowl, having not actually dismissed Lumahan, could properly be held liable for illegal dismissal.
Whether the NLRC erred in finding that no dismissal took place by misapplying the standard of substantial evidence and factual consistency.
Whether the CA erred in reversing the NLRC decision by improperly prioritizing the findings of Labor Arbiter Demaisip over those of the NLRC, thus committing grave abuse of discretion.

Whether the evidence, including payroll slips and security reports, sufficiently established the date and nature of Lumahan’s absence.
Whether the employer’s responsibility to prove a just or authorized cause for dismissal was properly met or circumvented by the absence of a formal dismissal action.
Whether the CA’s review improperly ventured into factual determinations beyond the scope allowed by a Rule 45 petition.