Title
Supreme Court
Guinto vs. Sto. Nino Long-Zeny Consignee
Case
G.R. No. 250987
Decision Date
Mar 29, 2022
A worker claimed illegal dismissal after being told not to return to work; SC ruled in his favor, awarding backwages, leave pay, and attorney’s fees, but denied separation pay and 13th month pay.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 250987)

Applicable Law

The case is governed by the Labor Code of the Philippines, particularly concerning the security of tenure of employees, illegal dismissal, payment of benefits such as service incentive leave and 13th month pay, as well as applicable jurisprudence regarding labor disputes.

Nature of Employment and Claims

Guinto filed a complaint asserting his employment with the respondents since August 1997, arguing that he held a position as a "sizer," which is integral to the respondents' business operations. Following his termination in November 2015, a series of communications ensued, culminating in his formal complaint seeking illegal dismissal relief and monetary compensation, including separation pay and attorney's fees.

Respondents' Defense

Respondents challenged the claim of an employer-employee relationship, insisting that Guinto operated exclusively as a porter at the Orani Fishport and was not their employee. They provided evidence, including affidavits from other porters and their business permits indicating only two regular employees, to dispute Guinto’s claims.

Ruling of the Labor Arbiter (LA)

The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Guinto, finding that he was indeed an employee of the respondents, primarily relying on a Certification from Angelo Salangsang. However, the LA also determined that Guinto had been illegally dismissed, ordering the payment of his back wages, separation pay, and other benefits.

Ruling of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC)

The NLRC upheld the finding of an employer-employee relationship but reversed the LA's determination of illegal dismissal. The NLRC concluded that Guinto failed to substantiate his claim of dismissal, leading to the order to reinstate him without back wages and granting him service incentive leave pay.

Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA)

The CA affirmed the NLRC's decision, finding no basis to overturn the latter's ruling regarding the absence of evidence proving illegal dismissal. It recognized Guinto’s entitlement to service incentive leave pay but denied 13th month pay, citing his commission-based compensation.

Supreme Court Ruling

Upon reviewing the petitions, the Supreme Court found that the CA failed to identify grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC when it dismissed Guinto's illegal dismissal claim. The Court h

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.