Title
Payno vs. Orizon Trading Corp. and Orata Trading
Case
G.R. No. 175345
Decision Date
Aug 19, 2009
Electrician Baltazar L. Payno was awarded separation pay, backwages, and attorney's fees after being illegally dismissed for refusing to sign a new employment contract.
Font Size

Case Digest (G.R. No. 175345)

Facts:

  • Baltazar L. Payno was employed as an electrician by Orata Trading, a signboard and billboard advertising company, starting October 21, 1993.
  • He was later promoted to senior installer.
  • On April 11, 2000, Payno was informed that Orata Trading would cease operations and Orizon Trading Corporation would take over.
  • He inquired about his employment status and separation pay but was told no separation pay would be provided as Orizon Trading was merely absorbing Orata Trading.
  • Payno was required to sign a new employment contract with Orizon Trading Corporation.
  • Disturbed by this, he filed a complaint for separation pay on May 4, 2000, while continuing to work.
  • On June 3, 2000, he was informed he could not report for work unless he signed the new contract.
  • The general manager offered him P7,000.00 as separation pay, which he rejected.
  • He filed an Amended Complaint on June 5, 2000, adding "illegal dismissal" as a cause of action.
  • The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Payno, stating he was constructively dismissed and entitled to separation pay and back wages.
  • The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed this decision with modifications.
  • Respondents filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which ruled in favor of the respondents, stating Payno had voluntarily resigned.
  • Payno then filed a petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Baltazar L. Payno, finding that he was illegally dismissed.
  • The decision of the Court of Appeals was set aside, and the decision of the National Labor Relations Commissio...(Unlock)

Ratio:

  • The Supreme Court emphasized that the burden of proof in termination cases lies with the employer to demonstrate the validity of the dismissal.
  • Since the respondents claimed Payno resigned, they were required to provide evidence supporting this claim.
  • The Court found no evidence indicating Payno's intention to resign; his immediate filing of a complaint for illegal ...continue reading

Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.

© 2024 Jur.ph. All rights reserved.