Case Digest (G.R. No. 230047)
Facts:
Mark Eliseus M. Villola v. United Philippine Lines, Inc. and Fernandino T. Lising, G.R. No. 230047, October 09, 2019, Supreme Court Third Division, Hernando, J., writing for the Court.
Petitioner Mark Eliseus M. Villola (Villola) sued respondents United Philippine Lines, Inc. (UPL) and its president Fernandino T. Lising for illegal dismissal, underpayment of salaries, unpaid Service Incentive Leave (SIL) pay and separation pay, and for moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees. Villola alleged he was hired by UPL on April 1, 2010 as Information Technology (IT) and Communications Manager, that an agreed additional monthly remuneration of P15,000 (payable at year-end) remained unpaid, and that he was unceremoniously dismissed effective June 1, 2013.
Respondents described a different sequence: UPL had outsourced and later transferred implementation of its CORE system to Villola, but in early 2013 found HelpDesk (an external consultant) able to perform key IT tasks; management informed Villola his position might be redundant and allegedly agreed with him that he would cease regular employment and instead render services as an independent consultant for a contemplated scanning project for another firm (SVI). On May 31, 2013 UPL General Manager Joey Consunji emailed Villola asking him to submit a resignation letter effective June 1, 2013 and to provide a proposal/quotation for the scanning project. Villola did not furnish a resignation letter but stopped reporting for work beginning June 1, 2013; he later submitted a June 27, 2013 proposal under the name “DRD Technology Solutions” and rendered some part‑time training work for an affiliate. UPL issued a memorandum dated October 11, 2014 advising employees that Villola’s separation was effective June 1, 2013 and directing security to deny him entry.
Villola filed his complaint on September 30, 2014. The Labor Arbiter (LA Joel S. Lustria) promulgated a decision on March 27, 2015 dismissing the illegal dismissal claim for lack of merit but awarding Villola separation pay of P60,000 and pro rata 13th month pay of P8,333.33, reasoning that Villola had voluntarily resigned or ceased reporting and that redundancy was a valid ground for separation. The NLRC reversed on November 27, 2015, declaring Villola to have been illegally dismissed and awarding backwages from June 1, 2013 until finality and separation pay in lieu of reinstatement; the NLRC denied reconsideration on January 25, 2016.
Respondents sought certiorari relief in the Court of Appeals (CA), which on September 16, 2016 granted the petition, reversed and set aside the NLRC decision, dismissed the illegal dismissal complaint, but ordered payment...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals gravely err in reversing the NLRC and finding that Villola was not illegally dismissed?
- Did the Court of Appeals gravely err in ruling that there was redundancy (or in treating redundancy as relevant)?
- Did the Court of Appeals gravely err in reversing and setting aside the NLRC’s award of bac...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)