A.C. No. 12839 - Reyes vs. Gubatan

Edna Luisa B. Simon filed a complaint on October 18, 2016 against The Results Companies and Joselito Sumcad alleging illegal dismissal, underpayment of salaries, nonpayment of separation pay, discrimination, and claiming moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees.
Petitioner asserted that she was hired as a Customer Service Representative on October 6, 2012 and that the company forced her to resign on December 13, 2012. To substantiate her employment, she submitted her identification card and copies of payslips.

Petitioner argued that she was forced to resign, essentially amounting to an illegal dismissal.
She relied on her employment records to prove the existence of her employment and her subsequent dismissal.

Initially, Results denied any record of employment.
Later, Results admitted that petitioner was a former employee with a very short stint (two months and seven days).
They contended that, even if employed, the short duration could not support regularization; her departure was either a voluntary resignation or an instance of absence without official leave (AWOL).
Results also argued that if truly aggrieved by constructive dismissal, petitioner should have filed her complaint immediately rather than waiting almost four years.

The LA ruled in favor of petitioner declaring that she was illegally dismissed.
However, the award was limited to backwages for the remaining period of her probationary employment and excluded moral, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees based on prescription issues.

The NLRC concurred with the LA that petitioner was illegally dismissed while classifying her as a probationary employee.
It adjusted the rate of backwages from ₱13,500.00 to ₱15,200.00 per month and dismissed Results’ appeal as lacking merit.
Reconsideration motions by both parties were dismissed.

The CA set aside the NLRC’s ruling by declaring petitioner a regular employee on the ground that her job functions were essential to the company’s business and that she was not informed of the criteria for regularization.
Despite classifying her as regular, the CA ruled that petitioner failed to prove an actual dismissal since she did not state the name of the manager allegedly ordering her termination, concluding instead that there was neither dismissal nor abandonment.
Consequently, the CA ordered the reinstatement of petitioner without backwages.

Both parties, aggrieved by conflicting decisions, sought review before the Supreme Court under Rule 45.

Petitioner supported her dismissal claim with a photocopy of SMS conversations from April 1, 2013, where a supervisor relayed that managers had decided to terminate her employment by placing her among "non-rehirable" agents.
Despite not knowing the specific manager’s name, the content of the texts supported the occurrence of termination.

Results failed to provide any resignation letter, performance records, or evidence of AWOL that would substantiate its claim of voluntary resignation or abandonment.

Whether the CA erred in classifying petitioner as a regular employee by holding that she was not informed of the regularization standards despite her alleged probationary status.
Whether there exists grave abuse of discretion in the determination by the NLRC regarding petitioner’s employment status and dismissal, particularly in light of the evidence presented.
Whether the petitioner sufficiently proved the fact of her dismissal despite the absence of a specifically named manager ordering the termination.
The appropriate computation and entitlement of monetary relief, including backwages, separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, and attorney’s fees, given petitioner’s age and the statutory retirement rules.