Title
Harpoon Marine Services, Inc. vs. Francisco
Case
G.R. No. 167751
Decision Date
Mar 2, 2011
Fernan Francisco, a Yard Supervisor, was illegally dismissed by Harpoon Marine Services. The Supreme Court affirmed dismissal due to lack of proof of habitual absenteeism but denied his P70,000 commission claim, citing insufficient evidence. Rosit, Harpoon's President, was absolved from liability.
illegal dismissal
shipyard supervisor
backwages
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. 167751)

Factual Background

Respondent began work in 1992 as Yard Supervisor. In 1998, he left for other employment and was later rehired by Harpoon, resuming his previous position after a year. On June 15, 2001, respondent alleged that he was unceremoniously dismissed by Rosit. He claimed that Rosit told him the company could no longer afford his salary and assured him that he would be paid separation pay and accrued commissions. Respondent continued reporting for work thereafter.

A few days later, respondent alleged that he was barred from entering the company premises. He went to the office on June 30, 2001 to receive his separation pay and commissions. Rosit allegedly offered only separation pay, and respondent refused to accept it and also declined to sign a quitclaim. After unheeded requests, respondent, through counsel, sent a demand letter dated September 24, 2001, requesting payment of P70,000.00 representing commissions for seven boats repaired or constructed under his supervision.

In a letter-reply dated September 28, 2001, petitioners denied liability for commissions, asserting that no contract or agreement existed for paying commissions. Respondent then filed an illegal dismissal complaint on October 24, 2001, praying for backwages, separation pay, unpaid commissions, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees. He insisted he was dismissed without just cause and that commissions were due based on company checks and the number of vessels repaired or constructed under his supervision.

Petitioners presented a different narrative. Rosit, they claimed, did not dismiss respondent on June 15, 2001. Instead, Rosit allegedly only reminded and warned respondent about excessive absences and tardiness, supported by the Time Card for June 1 to June 15, 2001. Petitioners alleged that respondent nonetheless persisted in absenteeism, then sought employment elsewhere in the same industry, allegedly damaging unfinished projects.

Petitioners denied terminating respondent on June 15, 2001 and claimed respondent voluntarily abandoned his work after going AWOL beginning June 22, 2001. They asserted that several memoranda enumerating respondent’s absences were sent to him by ordinary mail and were filed with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) on August 13, 2001, and that a Notice of Termination dated July 30, 2001 was later issued.

Respondent denied the alleged tardiness and absences. He argued that the three days of absence shown on his time card could not qualify as habitual absenteeism and claimed he missed work due to Rosit’s hospitalization, which allegedly resulted in an order that he should not report until Rosit was discharged. A co-worker, Nestor Solares, attested under oath that respondent remained diligent and reported for work until June 20, 2001, when respondent learned of the termination. Respondent also denied receiving the mailed memoranda, alleging fabrication to justify the alleged illegal termination. As to commissions, respondent maintained a monthly salary of P18,200.00 plus a commission of P10,000.00 per vessel repaired or constructed, supported by check vouchers. Petitioners disputed this characterization, contending respondent was paid a fixed salary as a regular employee, and that the alleged “commission” in the vouchers referred to additional amounts for accounting purposes rather than a contractual commission for every vessel.

Proceedings Before the Labor Arbiter

On May 17, 2002, the Labor Arbiter ruled in respondent’s favor on legality of dismissal and commission entitlement. The Labor Arbiter found that respondent was validly dismissed due to unjustified absences and tardiness, and that due process was observed because respondent was allegedly served several memoranda relating to the dismissal. The Labor Arbiter also found respondent entitled to the claimed commissions, crediting the check vouchers presented by him, and awarded attorney’s fees under Article 111 of the Labor Code for withholding of commissions.

The dispositive portion directed petitioners to pay respondent P70,000.00 as commission and attorney’s fees of ten percent (10%) thereof, while dismissing other claims for lack of merit.

Appeal and Competing Rulings of the NLRC

Both parties appealed to the NLRC. Petitioners argued that the Labor Arbiter erred in awarding commissions because the check vouchers were photocopies bearing initials of an unidentified person and supposedly did not show commissions were paid regularly in a manner that would warrant respondent’s entitlement. Respondent maintained that dismissal was illegal due to lack of sufficient evidence of gross absenteeism and tardiness and accused petitioners of bad faith in fabricating memoranda to mimic due process compliance.

In its Decision dated March 31, 2003, the NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s commission award because petitioners allegedly failed to refute respondent’s claim effectively. The NLRC deleted attorney’s fees for lack of evidence showing bad faith.

Respondent’s motion for reconsideration remained pending, while petitioners sought reconsideration to challenge the admission of photocopied vouchers as genuine evidence. In its Decision dated June 30, 2003, the NLRC modified its ruling. It declared the dismissal illegal. It reasoned that petitioners’ only evidence for habitual absenteeism and tardiness was respondent’s time card for June 1 to June 15, 2001, which showed only three absences, insufficient to establish gross and habitual absenteeism. It also sustained the commission award, emphasizing that petitioners did not question the vouchers’ authenticity at the first instance before the Labor Arbiter. It maintained the deletion of attorney’s fees for lack of proof of bad faith.

On account of illegal dismissal, the NLRC granted backwages and separation pay, and awarded commissions, with the total of backwages, separation pay, and commissions computed in the dispositive portion.

Review by the Court of Appeals

Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari before the CA. On January 26, 2005, the CA affirmed the NLRC. It agreed with the NLRC that the memoranda deserved no probative weight because petitioners failed to show that the memoranda were actually sent to respondent. The CA upheld respondent’s right to commissions based on the check vouchers and declared petitioners solidarily liable for respondent’s backwages, separation pay, and accrued commissions. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied on April 12, 2005, prompting the present petition.

Issues Raised in the Petition

Petitioners faulted the CA for not correcting alleged grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC and Labor Arbiter. They challenged the factual findings as unsupported by substantial evidence, allegedly conflicting, and allegedly grounded on speculation and misapprehension of facts. They also contested the CA’s conclusion of illegal dismissal, arguing respondent was habitually absent, later went AWOL, and abandoned his job. They further insisted that the commissions award lacked substantial evidence. Finally, petitioners denied bad faith and contested the imposition of solidary liability, particularly against Rosit.

The Court’s Ruling on Illegal Dismissal and Security of Tenure

The Court held that the dismissal was illegal because petitioners failed to present satisfactory evidence of a valid or just cause, noting the indispensable requirement to protect a laborer’s right to security of tenure. The Court examined petitioners’ evidence of absenteeism and tardiness and found no merit in petitioners’ claim that respondent incurred unexplained and habitual absences and tardiness. Scrutiny of the time card and payroll showed only three days of absence and no record of tardiness for the relevant period. Consistent with the NLRC’s assessment, those records did not establish gross and habitual absenteeism or tardiness. The Court further considered that respondent’s explanation for the three-day absences was not denied at the first instance before the Labor Arbiter. Petitioners allegedly presented no other competent evidence to establish the alleged absences and tardiness.

The Court also rejected petitioners’ argument that respondent incurred additional absences, went AWOL, and abandoned work. It emphasized that petitioners never denied offering respondent his separation pay. Indeed, in petitioners’ letter-reply dated September 28, 2001, petitioners intimated respondent could pick up P27,584.37, representing separation and 13th month pays, notwithstanding their insistence of just cause grounded on habitual absences. The Court treated this inconsistency as bolstering respondent’s claim that he had been barred from reporting for work after being dismissed in an illegal manner.

On abandonment of work, the Court reiterated that abandonment requires both (a) absence without valid or justifiable reason and (b) a clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship evidenced by overt acts. It also held that the employee’s deliberate and unjustified refusal to resume employment, absent intention to return, must be established and proven by the employer. Petitioners failed to prove that respondent voluntarily refused to report back by defying and refusing to accept the memoranda and notices. The Court agreed with the CA that petitioners failed to present evidence showing that the memoranda were sent to respondent’s last known address for the purpose of warning him that continued failure would be construed as abandonment. The affidavit of petitioners’ liaison officer that memoranda were duly sent was insufficient and self-serving because the memoranda, despite having been stamped as received, bore no signature from respondent indicating actual receipt. The Court also observed that respondent’s refusal to reinstate and pursuit of employment with another company did not, by itself, establish abandonment as the overt act required, and respondent’s four-month delay in filing

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms