Title
Joel A. Tapia vs. GA2 Pharmaceutical, Inc.
Case
G.R. No. 235725
Decision Date
Sep 28, 2022
Pharmacist Joel Tapia was illegally dismissed after refusing to sign a resignation letter; SC ruled in his favor, granting backwages, separation pay, and attorney’s fees.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 225595)

Description of Employment and Circumstances of Dismissal

Tapia was employed as a pharmacist with GA2, with a monthly salary of PHP 16,000. His duties initially involved direct pharmacy operations, but later expanded to include supervisory roles across various branches. On June 11, 2015, after requesting to be excused from work due to illness and a scheduling conflict related to the company car, Tapia faced a verbal altercation with Saldanha. This incident culminated in Saldanha allegedly ordering Tapia to resign or to go home and not return.

Procedural History Leading to Labor Arbiter's Decision

Following this incident, Tapia filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and additional money claims through the Single-Entry Approach. After failing to reach a settlement, he escalated the matter into a formal complaint, initially claiming constructive dismissal, which he later amended to illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter dismissed his complaint, finding insufficient proof of arbitrary dismissal, favoring GA2’s contention that Tapia had voluntarily left his position.

National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) Findings

The NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter's decision, finding that Tapia had been illegally dismissed. It highlighted several critical points: Tapia's coherent recollection of events, the unsubstantiated nature of GA2's allegations against him, and the lack of evidence regarding his supposed probationary status. The NLRC ordered GA2 to pay Tapia separation pay and backwages, denying all other claims.

Court of Appeals' Ruling

The Court of Appeals partially granted GA2's petition, ordering Tapia's reinstatement without backwages. It concluded that Tapia's allegations were not sufficiently substantiated and also questioned his claims related to his dismissal. The court found both parties' accounts regarding the dismissal to lack definitive evidence, ultimately ruling that Tapia failed to sufficiently prove he was dismissed from his employment.

Present Petition for Review

In his petition for review, Tapia contends that the ruling of the Court of Appeals should be overturned, emphasizing the nature of the verbal order from Saldanha as constituting dismissal. Tapia argues that the actions of Saldanha indicated his termination and that he acted promptly in filing the complaint, which negated claims of abandonment.

Supreme Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court reinstated the NLRC's ruling, emphasizing its role in resolving factual inconsistencies among earlier rulings from the Labor Arbiter, NLRC, and the Court of Appeals. The Court clarified that sufficient evidence was presented by Tapia to support his claim of dismissal, particularly noting Saldanha's authoritative verbal order not to report back to work as a clear expr

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.