Case Digest (G.R. No. 231859)
Facts:
Gerardo C. Roxas v. Baliwag Transit, Inc. and/or Joselito S. Tengco, G.R. No. 231859, February 19, 2020, Supreme Court Second Division, Perlas‑Bernabe, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Gerardo C. Roxas was a commission‑paid bus driver of respondent Baliwag Transit, Inc. (BTI) since March 24, 1998. In 2012 BTI phased out the bus to which Roxas was assigned pursuant to LTFRB Resolution No. 2013‑01, and Roxas’s regular three‑week duty was reduced to two weeks per month as he became a reliever. Believing the reduction adversely affected his pay and benefits, Roxas filed a complaint on June 5, 2014 (the first complaint) for constructive dismissal and various money claims before the NLRC‑NCR (docketed NCR‑06‑06790‑14).
On July 2, 2014, the scheduled NLRC hearing day, Roxas received an assignment and went to the terminal to inform terminal personnel of the hearing; he was warned he would be charged with abandonment if he did not ply his route. On July 15, 2014 BTI issued a notice to explain his absence; Roxas replied on July 21, 2014 explaining he did not intend to abandon work and that his presence at the hearing had been known to respondents. The first complaint was dismissed on October 15, 2014 for improper venue.
Roxas refiled on February 16, 2015 (the second complaint) before RAB III in San Fernando, Pampanga (RAB III‑02‑22498‑15), later amending the complaint to allege constructive dismissal effective June 4, 2014. After filing the second complaint Roxas received a notice accusing him of indiscriminate filing of labor cases; he alleged that respondents thereafter ceased assigning him trips and effectively relieved him of work duties. Respondents countered that Roxas remained on the roster and continued to receive assignments, accused him of insubordination and abandonment, and denied monetary claims including 13th month pay on the ground he was paid on commission.
On July 21, 2015 BTI issued a notice terminating Roxas effective that date for gross misconduct (indiscriminate filing of complaints), insubordination (failure to submit explanations), and absence without leave/abandonment. The Labor Arbiter (LA) dismissed Roxas’s complaint with prejudice in a Decision dated October 30, 2015, finding no constructive dismissal and upholding the dismissal for cause; money claims were denied for lack of basis and 13th month pay denied because Roxas was paid on commission. Roxas appealed to the NLRC.
In a Resolution dated January 8, 2016, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the LA, holding the reduced work scheme applied to all drivers and was due to a government‑imposed phase‑out, and that Roxas’s dismissal was justified under Article 297 (formerly Art. 282) of the Labor Code for insubordination, abandonment, and similar causes. The NLRC denied reconsideration on February 29, 2016. Roxas then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), docketed CA‑G.R. SP No. 145623.
The Court of Appeals, in a Decision dated November 23, 2016, denied the petition, agreeing there was no constructive dismissal because BTI’s reduction of assignments was in good faith pursuant to the LTFRB directive and applied to all affected drivers; it also found Roxas’s ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals gravely abuse its discretion in affirming the labor tribunals’ finding that there was no constructive dismissal when Roxas’s work assignments were reduced?
- Was Roxas’s termination effective July 21, 2015 supported by substantial evidence of just causes under Article 297 (formerly Art. 282) of the Labor Code (serious misconduct, insubordination, abandonment)?
- What are the appropriate remedies and monetary reliefs (reinstatement or separation pay, backwages, 13th month pay, damages, ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)