Case Summary (G.R. No. 189493)
Summary of Procedural History
The respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against the petitioners, which was initially ruled in his favor by Labor Arbiter Joel S. Lustria. However, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed this decision, dismissing the complaint for lack of merit. Following this, the respondent sought certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA), which reinstated the Labor Arbiter's decision, finding that the NLRC had gravely abused its discretion.
Overview of Facts
The respondent was hired on July 27, 1999, and served at the Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation (RCBC) branch in Pasay City before his alleged dismissal on January 27, 2004. The events leading to his complaint involved an altercation with a driver named George Chua, after which the respondent was investigated and recommended for a seven-day suspension. Instead of accepting the suspension, he expressed a preference to resign, although he later filed a complaint claiming he was placed on indefinite floating status and constructively dismissed.
Burden of Proof in Employment Dismissal
Central to the ruling is the principle that the employer bears the burden of proving a voluntary resignation by clear and convincing evidence, while the employee must substantiate claims of illegal dismissal or constructive dismissal. In this case, the Court found that the petitioners satisfactorily disproved the respondent’s claims.
Evaluation of Evidence
The CA's decision relied heavily on the respondent's inability to provide sufficient evidence to support his assertions of constructive dismissal. The January 27, 2003 memo directing him to report to the head office for instruction was deemed insufficient to prove the claims of being placed on floating status. The petitioners, conversely, presented robust evidence, including affidavits from other employees affirming the respondent's verbal resignation and subsequent actions taken by him concerning his employment.
Allegations of Process Lapses
The respondent contended that the petitioners conducted an improper investigation, specifically citing a lack of opportunity to confront the driver involved in his altercation. He also claimed he was never notified of the suspension order. However, the Court found that the respondent's resignation rendered such process criticisms moot, as the primary issue was the nature and voluntariness of his resignation rather than the procedural adequacy of the investigation.
Resumption of Jurisdiction and Decision
The Supreme Court, upon review, found merit in the petitioners' arguments that the CA had erred i
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 189493)
Introduction
- The case revolves around allegations of illegal dismissal filed by Sotero M. Academia, Jr., a security guard against his employer, FCA Security and General Services, Inc. (FCA), and its general manager, Maj. Jose Laid, Jr.
- The Supreme Court's decision, dated August 2, 2017, addresses the burdens of proof regarding voluntary resignation and the conditions surrounding alleged constructive dismissal.
Background of the Case
- Initial Employment: Respondent Academia was hired as a security guard by FCA on July 27, 1999, with his last assignment at the RCBC branch in Pasay City.
- Incident Leading to Dismissal: An altercation occurred on January 28, 2003, with a Dunkin Donuts driver, George Chua, which led to a police complaint against Academia for grave threats.
- Investigation Outcome: Following internal investigation, it was recommended that Academia be suspended for seven days, which he refused, claiming he preferred to voluntarily resign instead.
- Filing of Complaint: Instead of submitting a resignation, Academia filed a complaint for illegal dismissal in October 2003.
Procedural History
- Labor Arbiter's Decision (February 28, 2005): Initially ruled in favor of Academia, finding FCA liable for illegal dismissal, awarding back wages and separation pay.
- NLRC Reversal (Decemb