G.R. No. 196573 - Opinaldo vs. Ravina

Victorino Opinaldo worked as a security guard for St. Louisse Security Agency, owned and managed by Narcisa Ravina.
Opinaldo was hired on October 5, 2005, with a daily salary of P176.66 and was initially assigned to PAIJR Furniture Accessories in Mandaue City.

On August 15, 2006, the owner of PAIJR submitted a written complaint identifying two guards—Opinaldo and SGT. Sosmenia.
The complaint requested the relief of Opinaldo because he was allegedly “no longer physically fit” due to health issues.

Respondent (Ravina) acted on the complaint by reassigning Opinaldo and requiring him to submit a medical certificate to prove his fitness for work as a security guard.
On September 6, 2006, Opinaldo was reassigned to Gomez Construction in Mandaue City.
Despite working for approximately two weeks and receiving his corresponding salary, Opinaldo eventually ceased reporting for work.

On November 7, 2006, Opinaldo filed a complaint with the DOLE Regional Office in Cebu City for underpayment of salary and nonpayment of labor benefits.
A compromise was reached and, on November 27, 2006, Opinaldo signed a Quitclaim and Release for the sum of P5,000.
On December 22, 2006, when Opinaldo returned to the Agency seeking to avail a SSS Sickness Notification for a medical check-up, Ravina allegedly informed him that he was no longer an employee, relying on the earlier quitclaim as evidence of his resignation.

On January 26, 2007, Opinaldo filed a Complaint for Illegal Dismissal with the NLRC, asking for separation pay in lieu of reinstatement.
Labor Arbiter Maria Christina S. Sagmit, on June 18, 2008, ruled in favor of Opinaldo finding that there was no evidence he was physically unfit or that he had been properly notified to submit a medical certificate, thus declaring the dismissal illegal.
The NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s decision citing the absence of just or authorized cause for termination, noting that the failure to work was due to Ravina’s refusal to assign him work pending submission of the medical certificate.
On October 19, 2010, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed and set aside the NLRC and Labor Arbiter decisions, basing its ruling primarily on Opinaldo’s failure to report for work and contesting his claim of illegal dismissal.
The CA further upheld that Ravina’s requirement of a medical certificate was a valid exercise of management prerogative.
Opinaldo then filed a petition with the Supreme Court alleging errors in both the timeliness issue of the motion for reconsideration and the substantive issue on the legality of his dismissal.

Issue of whether Ravina’s filing of the motion for reconsideration with the NLRC was timely or moot due to the NLRC’s decision on the merits.
Dispute on whether the petition for certiorari was properly verified and timely filed.
Conflicting findings on whether Ravina required the submission of a medical certificate and whether this failure constituted abandonment of employment.

Whether the motion for reconsideration filed by respondent with the NLRC, although allegedly filed out of time, became moot once the NLRC gave it due course by deciding on the merits.
Whether the petitioner’s argument regarding the 60-day period for filing a petition for certiorari is valid considering that the motion for reconsideration was eventually resolved on the merits.

Whether Ravina’s requirement that Opinaldo submit a medical certificate to prove physical and mental fitness was a valid exercise of management prerogative.
Whether the failure of Opinaldo to comply with the request for a medical certificate justified the withholding of work assignments and ultimately led to his termination.

Whether Opinaldo’s failure to report for work after his reassignment amounted to abandonment of his employment.
Whether clear and overt intent to sever the employer–employee relationship was established through his actions.

Whether there was sufficient evidence that Ravina notified Opinaldo of the consequence of non-submission of the medical certificate.
Whether the manner in which employment was terminated adhered to the principles of due process and fair play.

Whether the alleged defect in the verification of the petition for certiorari (based on personal belief rather than personal knowledge) is fatal or merely a formal defect that can be remedied.