Case Summary (G.R. No. 248304)
Applicable Law
The case primarily involves provisions under the 1987 Philippine Constitution related to labor, specifically:
- Article 279 of the Labor Code (Security of Tenure) regarding the grounds and procedures for termination of employment and the consequences of illegal dismissal, including reinstatement or separation pay and backwages,
- Article 282 of the Labor Code listing just causes for termination,
- Articles 112 and 113 on interference with wages and lawful deductions,
- Relevant jurisprudence on awarding moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees in labor disputes.
Factual Background
Agapito was employed by Aeroplus starting February 2004 with a stipulated daily wage and a monthly P200 cash bond deduction. On December 30, 2014, during a company meeting, Agapito raised concerns of unfair treatment regarding work assignments and lateness policies. His supervisor, Constantino, allegedly berated him. Agapito reported this incident to Aeroplus’ personnel office on January 5, 2015. Subsequently, he was issued a memorandum for insubordination and suspended from February 13 to March 3, 2015. Upon resuming work, OIC-Personnel Darrel Mendoza allegedly told Agapito “Wala na tiwala sayo ang Management kaya tanggal ka na!” (The management no longer trusts you, so you are terminated) and ordered him out, effectively dismissing him verbally without formal notice.
Proceedings Before Labor Arbiter
Agapito filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, illegal suspension, and monetary claims. He argued he was dismissed and suspended without just cause or due process, citing Art. 282 and arguing for entitlement to separation pay under Art. 279, plus other benefits and damages. Aeroplus claimed the dismissal was justified due to repeated absences and insubordination, denying issuance of dismissal or suspension notices but acknowledging warnings for policy violations.
The Labor Arbiter found Aeroplus liable for illegal dismissal, awarding full backwages, separation pay, service incentive leave pay, 13th month pay, reimbursement of unlawful cash bond deductions totaling P454,889.16, moral and exemplary damages of P20,000 each, and attorney’s fees equivalent to 10% of the award. The Arbiter emphasized the verbal statements by Mendoza and immediate order to leave as unequivocal dismissal without due process and rejected Aeroplus’ failure to provide substantial evidence of lost trust.
Proceedings Before the NLRC
On appeal, the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter’s ruling. It dismissed the illegal dismissal complaint and ordered Agapito’s reinstatement without backwages. The NLRC accepted for the first time affidavits from Mendoza and Constantino, denying the alleged dismissive statements. It held that the burden shifted to Agapito to prove dismissal by substantial evidence and found that he failed to do so. The NLRC also clarified that strict adherence to the rules of evidence is not required in labor cases and denied backwages while ordering reinstatement. A motion for reconsideration by Agapito was denied, but partial monetary benefits (service incentive leave, 13th month pay, cash bond) were recognized.
Proceedings Before the Court of Appeals
Agapito filed a Rule 65 petition for certiorari assailing the NLRC’s admission and reliance on belated affidavits and affirming no illegal dismissal. He argued that the affidavits were self-serving, submitted without justification, and that due process and equity demanded the reversal of NLRC findings. Aeroplus maintained no illegal dismissal occurred and favored liberality in procedural rules to avoid dismissing cases on mere technicalities.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC’s decision and denied reconsideration.
Issues on Petition for Review
Agapito contended:
- He was dismissed verbally without just cause or due process, violating his right to security of tenure;
- The belated affidavits of Mendoza and Constantino lacked probative value and should not have been admitted;
- He is entitled to the monetary awards granted by the Labor Arbiter due to illegal dismissal.
Aeroplus argued:
- There was no illegal dismissal as it provided evidence contradicting Agapito’s claims;
- Labor cases favor substantive justice rather than procedural technicalities.
The Supreme Court’s Analysis on Evidence Admission
While the Court acknowledged the labor tribunal’s liberal approach to evidence and procedural rules, it emphasized that such liberality is bound by principles of fairness, due process, and justice. The Court held:
- The belated affidavits submitted by Aeroplus for the first time on appeal were admitted without explanation or justification, violating fair play;
- These self-serving affidavits, which denied clear, prompt, and detailed testimony from Agapito, were given undue weight by the NLRC and CA;
- Admission of such evidence without explanation or prior opportunity to contest prejudices the opposing party and is reversible error.
The Court cited established jurisprudence (e.g., MORESCO II v. Cagalawan) underscoring that delays in submitting evidence must be explained and supported by the evidence’s probative value.
The Supreme Court’s Findings on Illegal Dismissal
The Court reiterated the two-step analysis in illegal dismissal cases:
- The employee must prove by substantial evidence that dismissal occurred;
- The employer must prove the dismissal was legal and justified.
Here, the Court found:
- The statements by Mendoza, ordering Agapito’s removal and declaring loss of management’s trust, were clear and categorical evidence of dismissal;
- Aeroplus failed to present substantial evidence to refute these facts effectively since its belated affidavits were discredited;
- No due process requirements were complied with—the dismissal was verbal and summary;
- Hence, Agapito was illegally dismissed.
Entitlement to Monetary Benefits and Damages
Because of illegal dismissal, Agapito is entitled to:
- Full backwages from the date of dismissal to the finality of the decision;
- Separation pay equivalent to one month pay for every year of service as an alternative to reinstatement given strained relations;
- Service incentive leave pay and 13th month pay for the last three years, as Aeroplus failed to prove payment;
- Reimbu
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 248304)
Case Background and Facts
- The petitioner, Marlon Butial Agapito, was hired in February 2004 by respondent Aeroplus Multi-Services, Inc. as a housekeeper for a daily wage of ₱466.00 with a ₱200.00 monthly cash bond deduction.
- On December 30, 2014, during a meeting, petitioner questioned his supervisor George Constantino about unfair treatment regarding disciplinary actions for tardiness.
- Constantino met the inquiry with a retort accusing petitioner of not doing his work properly and told him to leave if he disapproved of the rules.
- Petitioner reported this to the company’s personnel office on January 5, 2015, after which he received a letter memorandum for insubordination.
- Aeroplus suspended the petitioner from February 13 to March 3, 2015.
- Upon returning to work on March 3, 2015, petitioner was verbally dismissed by OIC-Personnel Darrel Mendoza through clear utterances signaling loss of trust and termination, followed by an order to leave the premises.
- Petitioner filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) for illegal dismissal, illegal suspension, and claim for money benefits.
Proceedings Before the Labor Arbiter
- Petitioner claimed suspension and dismissal without just cause and due process, non-compliance with procedural requirements, and entitlements to separation pay, 13th month pay, service incentive leave, reimbursement of cash bond, attorney’s fees, and moral and exemplary damages.
- Aeroplus defended that petitioner had a history of absences and insubordination, denied issuing formal termination or suspension notices, and argued petitioner’s monetary claims lacked basis.
- The Labor Arbiter found Aeroplus liable for illegal dismissal and awarded petitioner full monetary claims, including backwages, separation pay, service incentive leave pay, 13th month pay, reimbursement of cash bond deductions, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees totaling ₱454,889.16.
- The dismissal was deemed carried out without proper due process, based on Mendoza’s clear statements and order to vacate the office.
- Aeroplus failed to substantiate loss of trust or to challenge procedural violations.
- Illegal suspension claim was dismissed, acknowledging petitioner’s admission of disrespect to Constantino and his subsequent apology.
- Vice-Chairperson Mitzi Therese P. De Guzman was not held personally liable due to petitioner’s failure to specify reasons for joinder.
NLRC Decision and Reasoning
- On appeal, the NLRC reversed the labor arbiter’s ruling, dismissed the illegal dismissal complaint, and ordered petitioner’s reinstatement without backwages.
- NLRC acceded to the belatedly submitted affidavits of Mendoza and Constantino which denied the events leading to dismissal.
- The submission of these affidavits on appeal shifted the burden of proof to the petitioner, who failed to substantiate his cla