G.R. No. 207500 - Quesada vs. Boza Restaurants, Inc.

Petitioner: Dionarto Q. Noblejas, who initially served as a training instructor/assessor for Italian Maritime Academy Philippines, Inc. (IMAPI) on a contractual basis beginning May 20, 2009.
Respondents:

Italian Maritime Academy Philippines, Inc. (IMAPI) – a training and assessment center for seamen.
Capt. Nicolo S. Terrei – Managing Director of IMAPI.
Raceli B. Ferrez – Secretary to Capt. Terrei.
Ma. Teresa R. Mendoza – Administrative Manager of IMAPI.

Noblejas was initially hired under a three-month contract at a monthly salary of ₱75,000.00 (inclusive of tax).
After the contract expired, he was rehired with the same salary rate but without a new written contract, an omission that later became a point of contention.

Concerned about the absence of a written contract upon renewal, Noblejas sent a letter dated March 9, 2010, to Capt. Terrei.
In the letter, he requested the execution of a new contract reflecting verbally-agreed provisions:

His monthly salary should be ₱75,000.00 on a tax-excluded basis, with 50% of his SSS premium to be shouldered by the company.
After his three-month contract, he was to be given an option: either become a regular employee or be assigned to serve on board a vessel with corresponding financial aid for processing documents (the aid later to be deducted from his salary).

Noblejas indicated his preference to continue as a regular employee under the new terms.

On March 16, 2010, following his letter and a subsequent meeting with Capt. Terrei, an altercation allegedly ensued between Noblejas and the company’s representatives.
Noblejas claimed that during or after the meeting, Capt. Terrei directed Ferrez to terminate his employment.
Allegedly, when Noblejas requested a copy of his contract, Ferrez purportedly told him to pack up, stating he was dismissed effective immediately.

On March 17, 2010, Noblejas did not report for work and subsequently filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, tax refund, moral and exemplary damages, non-payment of 13th month pay, various allowances, health insurance, monetized leave, and attorney’s fees.
At the Labor Arbiter (LA) level (October 15, 2010), the decision found that Noblejas was illegally dismissed and awarded him limited backwages, separation pay (in lieu of reinstatement), and proportionate 13th month pay.
Respondents appealed the LA decision to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), which on October 27, 2011, reversed the LA ruling; it determined that there was no evidence of a positive and overt dismissal act and that Noblejas was a contractual employee.
The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the NLRC decision on February 22, 2013, and again denied Noblejas’ additional monetary claims.
Dissatisfied with the CA ruling, Noblejas filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court, alleging errors in:

Noblejas contended that his work, which was necessary and desirable to IMAPI’s business, had effectively made him a regular employee despite the absence of a new written contract.
He argued that his dismissal was illegal because the proper evidentiary burden was not met by the respondents, who failed to establish that there was no dismissal.
He maintained that his prompt filing of a dismissal complaint evidenced his disinterest in the alleged termination, countering the respondents’ version of events.

Whether Noblejas should be classified as a regular employee of IMAPI or remain a contractual employee given the nature and continuity of his services.

Whether there was a positive and overt act evidencing his dismissal by the respondents.
Whether the alleged remarks and subsequent events constitute an illegal dismissal.

Whether Noblejas is entitled to claim benefits such as proportionate 13th month pay, backwages, separation pay, and other monetary claims.

Whether Noblejas established the fact of his dismissal by clear, positive, and convincing evidence, satisfying the requisite evidentiary burden.