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.
illegal dismissal
labor law
employment contract

Case Summary (G.R. No. 235725)

Factual Background

Joel A. Tapia alleged that he began working for GA2 Pharmaceutical, Inc. in July 2013 as a pharmacist with a monthly salary of P16,000.00. He testified that his duties included serving as resident and later roving pharmacist, supervising branches, and performing product delivery and sales collection. On June 11, 2015, Tapia averred that he felt unwell and could not perform a delivery because the company vehicle was subject to number coding. He alleged that Lancy Vijay Saldanha, GA2’s General Manager, scolded him, instructed Personnel Officer Evelyn Zuniega to prepare a resignation letter, and when Tapia refused to sign, ordered him to go home and never return.

Respondent’s Account

GA2 Pharmaceutical, Inc. maintained that Tapia was hired only on March 25, 2015 as a probationary pharmacist/driver pursuant to a probationary contract. GA2 asserted that Tapia performed poorly and often received reprimands. It recounted that on June 9 or June 11, 2015, Tapia refused to deliver the items after an altercation with Saldanha, left the office, and failed to return despite attempts to contact him. GA2 sent Tapia a notice to explain (NTE) dated June 15, 2015 and submitted affidavits of co-employees describing Tapia’s behavior.

Pleadings and Claims

Tapia pursued relief initially under SEnA and then filed a formal complaint on July 24, 2015 for illegal dismissal and money claims including nonpayment of overtime, holiday pay, 13th month pay, illegal deduction, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees. He amended his complaint on September 24, 2015 to allege illegal dismissal. GA2 countered with the probationary employment defense and factual averments challenging Tapia’s account.

Ruling of the Labor Arbiter

Labor Arbiter Joanne G. Hernandez-Lazo dismissed Tapia’s complaint by Decision dated January 29, 2016. The Labor Arbiter found that Tapia failed to prove arbitrary dismissal. The NTE and the affidavits of GA2’s employees, the Labor Arbiter held, outweighed Tapia’s self-serving allegations.

Ruling of the National Labor Relations Commission

The NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter by Decision dated June 30, 2016 and declared that Tapia was illegally dismissed. The NLRC ordered GA2 to pay separation pay and backwages until finality, and attorney’s fees equivalent to ten percent of the judgment. The NLRC found that Tapia established the fact of dismissal by a categorical account unrefuted by Saldanha; that GA2’s employee affidavits were self-serving; that there was no proof of Tapia’s receipt of the NTE; that the probationary employment contention was an afterthought; that Tapia’s immediate filing of his complaint negated abandonment; and that his refusal to accept reinstatement at conciliation reflected strained relations rather than abandonment.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

The Court of Appeals, in a Decision dated July 12, 2017, partially granted GA2’s petition for certiorari and ordered Tapia’s reinstatement without backwages. The Court of Appeals concluded that Tapia failed to prove that he was dismissed and characterized his allegations as self-serving and unsubstantiated. It noted that Tapia did not produce the alleged resignation letter he refused to sign. The Court of Appeals also did not accept GA2’s claim of abandonment but rejected Tapia’s case on the ground that he failed to prove dismissal. It further found that GA2 did not prove the explanation of probationary standards when presenting the alleged probationary contract.

The Present Petition and Procedural Posture

Joel A. Tapia filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 45 seeking affirmative relief from the Court of Appeals’ rulings. He reiterated that Saldanha berated him, ordered him not to return, and forced him to sign a resignation. Tapia explained his inability to procure corroborating affidavits by invoking the co-employees’ dependence on GA2 for continued employment. The record reflects procedural skirmishes concerning GA2’s counsel’s failure to timely file a comment and the Court’s subsequent directions and extensions. Eventually the Supreme Court considered GA2 to have waived the opportunity to comment.

Supreme Court Disposition

The Supreme Court granted Tapia’s petition and reversed the Court of Appeals’ Decision and Resolution. The Court reinstated the NLRC Decision dated June 30, 2016. The Court ordered that the total monetary award bear legal interest at six percent per annum from the finality of the decision until full satisfaction, and remanded the case to Labor Arbiter Joanne G. Hernandez-Lazo for computation of the award. The Court clarified that attorney’s fees were to be received by the Public Attorney’s Office as a trust fund pursuant to Chapter 5, Title III, Book IV of Executive Order No. 292, as amended by Republic Act No. 9406.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court explained that it ordinarily did not reweigh evidence but may address factual issues when findings were inconsistent among tribunals. It reiterated the settled burden-shifting rule in illegal dismissal cases: the employee must first prove by substantial evidence the fact of dismissal, and the employer must then justify its legality. The Court found that Tapia sufficiently established the fact of dismissal by presenting a detailed account that he was ordered to go home and never return by his immediate superior, Saldanha, who had authority to terminate. The Court relied on precedent that a verbal command by an authorized superior not to report for work may constitute an overt

...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