Case Digest (G.R. No. 241814)
Facts:
Site for Eyes, Inc. (formerly Delos Reyes Optical City, Inc.) hired Dr. Amor F. Daming as an optometrist on November 20, 2012; she worked until October 15, 2013 and was rehired on April 8, 2014 under a one‑year contract (P28,000 monthly) that was renewed on April 20, 2015 purportedly until April 20, 2016 with an agreed salary of P33,000 which she never received. After she sought enforcement of unpaid benefits under SEnA on March 22, 2016, petitioner barred her from the shop during an audit and the SEnA hearing on April 20, 2016, which respondent treated as constructive dismissal and for which she filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with money claims.The Labor Arbiter rendered judgment for respondent on November 14, 2016; the NLRC and the Court of Appeals (Decision dated May 10, 2018; Resolution dated August 7, 2018) affirmed; petitioner filed this Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari, which the Court denied on June 20, 2021.
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err i
Case Digest (G.R. No. 241814)
Facts:
- Background of the dispute
- Petitioner: Site for Eyes, Inc. (formerly Delos Reyes Optical City, Inc.), a domestic corporation dispensing optical lenses, solutions, and equipment.
- Respondent: Dr. Amor F. Daming, hired by petitioner as an optometrist on November 20, 2012 and worked until October 15, 2013.
- Respondent was rehired on April 8, 2014 under a one-year employment contract with monthly salary of P28,000.00.
- Respondent’s employment was renewed on April 20, 2015 to end on April 20, 2016 with a promised salary increase to P33,000.00 which petitioner allegedly did not implement despite repeated demands.
- On March 22, 2016, respondent and two co-employees filed a request for assistance with the Department of Labor and Employment under the Single Entry Approach (SEnA) to recover unpaid salary, salary differential, overtime pay, 13th month pay, separation pay, damages, attorney’s fees, and costs of suit.
- Petitioner conducted an audit of its shops and discovered missing items; petitioner served respondent a show cause notice and, during the SEnA hearing on April 20, 2016, threatened suit should respondent fail to account for the missing items.
- Respondent accepted receipt of the show cause notice on condition she could examine the audited store receipts; petitioner thereafter barred respondent entry into the shop, which respondent treated as an effective termination of employment.
- Respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with money claims.
- Petitioner’s defenses included denial of any salary increase, assertion of laches, and contention that respondent was a fixed-term employee whose contract expired rather than was terminated.
- Respondent’s reply included text messages evidencing pursuit of her claims and an employment contract that specified duration, probationary status, and standards for regularization.
- Labor Arbiter proceedings and award
- Labor Arbiter Joan M. Jabar-Waga rendered a Decision dated November 14, 2016.
- The Labor Arbiter found respondent a regular employee, concluded petitioner’s barring of respondent from the shop amounted to *constructive dismissal*, and declared the dismissal illegal.
- Monetary awards ordered by the Labor Arbiter (tentative amounts as of decision):
- Full backwages, inclusive of allowances and other benefits, from April 20, 2016 until finality, tentatively Php244,020.77.
- Separation pay equivalent to one month pay for every year of service until finality, tentatively Php132,000.00.
- Unpaid salary of Php8,587.86 and overtime pay of Php2,683.70 for April 11–19, 2016....(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Issues presented by Petitioner
- Whether the CA erred in affirming the findings of the NLRC and the Labor Arbiter that Respondent was illegally dismissed, that there was constructive dismissal, and that the fixed-period employment contract was not used to circumvent the law on regularization.
- Whether the CA erred in affirming the NLRC’s and Labor Arbiter’s conclusion on Respondent’s employment status, given petitioner’s contention that Respondent did not raise fixed-period employment as an issue and that all elements of a valid fixed-period employment were present.
- Whether the CA erred in ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)