Title
Litex Glass and Aluminum Supply vs. Sanchez
Case
G.R. No. 198465
Decision Date
Apr 22, 2015
Sanchez, employed since 1994, claimed illegal dismissal after being scolded and refused work in 2008. Petitioners denied employment pre-2002, alleging abandonment. SC ruled illegal dismissal, awarded separation pay (from 2002), backwages, and attorney’s fees.
illegally dismissed
reinstatement
seniority rights
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. 198465)

Factual Background

Sanchez alleged that he had been employed since 1994 as a driver and aluminum installer in several companies owned and managed by Ong-Sitco, with his last assignment being with Litex. He also claimed that starting February 1996, Ong-Sitco remitted his monthly Social Security System (SSS) contributions. Sanchez denied receiving any reprimand, suspension, or warning for any work-related offense, and he averred that he diligently served his employers for about fifteen years.

Sanchez narrated that on December 23, 2008, Ong-Sitco and the latter’s wife scolded him, used insulting words, and then ordered him to go on indefinite leave. Sanchez left the workplace intending that the animosity would eventually subside. He returned on December 28, 2008 to talk but was ignored. He made further attempts on January 2, 2009 and again a week later, but Ong-Sitco refused to discuss his employment status.

After filing the complaint for illegal dismissal and unpaid benefits on February 18, 2009, Sanchez received two memorandum-letters. The first, dated January 7, 2009 but mailed on February 23, 2009 and received on February 26, 2009, directed him to report for work and to explain his alleged absences from December 22, 2008 to January 7, 2009, after he was supposedly given verbal warnings for three alleged infractions: going home early without justification on December 3, 2008; exhibiting erratic behavior and threatening to file a case after being summoned on December 9, 2008; and unauthorized use of a company vehicle on December 20, 2008. The second memorandum-letter, dated January 22, 2009, mailed on March 10, 2009 and received on March 22, 2009, warned Sanchez that refusal to comply with the prior directive within twenty-four hours would constitute abandonment.

Sanchez’s counsel, Atty. Osias M. Merioles, Jr., replied by letter dated March 20, 2009, asserting that Sanchez would not report for work because the first memorandum-letter was merely an afterthought intended to cover up an illegal termination. Petitioners, for their part, denied Sanchez’s employment history as starting in 1994, explaining that Litex was only registered on April 5, 2002. Petitioners also denied any dismissal and maintained that Sanchez abandoned his job by not reporting for work. They further argued that the memorandum-letters were not termination letters but notices to report and to explain alleged infractions. Petitioners insisted that the letters were sent after the proper mailing dates and were returned to sender, and they pointed to Sanchez’s alleged unpaid accountabilities as additional reasons not to treat Sanchez as dismissed.

Proceedings Before the Labor Arbiter

In a June 18, 2009 Decision, the Labor Arbiter found Sanchez to have been illegally dismissed. The Labor Arbiter credited Sanchez’s narrative as more credible. It relied on registry receipts attached to the envelopes containing the January memorandum-letters. Those receipts showed that the January 7 and January 22 memorandum-letters were actually mailed only on February 23, 2009 and March 10, 2009, respectively—after the February 18, 2009 filing of the complaint. The Labor Arbiter concluded that the memorandum-letters were made and sent to evade the consequences of an illegal termination by giving the appearance of compliance with notice requirements and by demonstrating the absence of dismissal.

The Labor Arbiter also held that the alleged infractions were not sufficient to warrant dismissal. For illegal dismissal, Sanchez was awarded separation pay computed from his asserted date of hiring in 1994 up to finality of the decision, and full backwages computed from the date of dismissal up to finality of the decision. He was likewise granted holiday pay, service incentive leave pay, and attorney’s fees, while other claims were dismissed for lack of merit.

Ruling of the NLRC

Petitioners appealed to the NLRC, raising issues that Sanchez abandoned his job, that separation pay should not have been awarded since it was not prayed for and there was no strained relationship, that separation pay should not be computed from 1994, that petitioners’ alleged monetary claim should offset Sanchez’s awards, and that attorney’s fees were improper absent bad faith.

In an October 30, 2009 Resolution, the NLRC dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Labor Arbiter. It held that Sanchez did not abandon his work because there was no showing of a clear intention to resign or forego employment. It upheld separation pay and the other monetary awards. It also sustained the Labor Arbiter’s refusal to deduct alleged liabilities because they were not fully substantiated and arose from a different contractual relation. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied in a February 18, 2010 Resolution.

Court of Appeals Proceedings

Petitioners then filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals. In its May 11, 2011 Decision, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition and affirmed the NLRC and Labor Arbiter.

The Court of Appeals agreed that Sanchez was dismissed without valid grounds. It also found that Sanchez was not guilty of abandonment because he filed a case soon after attempts to return to work proved futile. It further characterized the memorandum-letters as afterthoughts since they were sent after the complaint was filed, and it viewed the existence of antagonism between the parties as a basis for separation pay. It found that Sanchez had been in Ong-Sitco’s employ for about fifteen years, and it likewise found that petitioners’ alleged accountabilities were not fully substantiated and could not offset the monetary awards due to their differing contractual source. Finally, it held that Sanchez was entitled to attorney’s fees because he was compelled to litigate to protect his rights.

On backwages, the Court of Appeals ruled that computation should run from the date of dismissal on December 23, 2008 until finality, and not only until March 20, 2009, because Sanchez’s refusal to return to work was justified. The Court of Appeals reasoned that Sanchez’s refusal rested on a reasonable belief that compliance with the memorandum-letters would serve petitioners’ apparent objective of avoiding responsibility for illegally terminating him.

The Court of Appeals denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration in an August 31, 2011 Resolution, prompting the present Supreme Court review.

The Parties’ Contentions in the Supreme Court

In the Supreme Court, petitioners argued that Sanchez was not entitled to monetary awards because there was no dismissal. They reiterated that separation pay was improper since it was neither prayed for nor supported by allegations of strained relations, and because the employment history should be reckoned only from 2002 when Sanchez allegedly began working for them, not from 1994. They also maintained that attorney’s fees were improper for lack of bad faith. Petitioners likewise invoked the claim that Sanchez had abandoned his work.

Sanchez’s position, as reflected through the consistent factual findings of the Labor Arbiter, NLRC, and Court of Appeals, was that he was illegally dismissed and that the memorandum-letters were sent only after the complaint to create an appearance of lawful process.

Legal Basis and Reasoning of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court ruled that petitioners failed to show any reversible error and affirmed the Court of Appeals, with modification on the computation of separation pay. It held that Sanchez did not abandon his work but was illegally dismissed.

On abandonment, petitioners relied on the memorandum-letters and argued that they were show-cause notices sent to give Sanchez an opportunity to answer the alleged infractions and return to work. The Court nevertheless emphasized that whether Sanchez had been dismissed was a matter of fact. It declined to disturb the uniform factual findings of the Labor Arbiter, NLRC, and Court of Appeals, which were supported by substantial evidence and entitled to respect and finality.

The Supreme Court pointed to the factual pattern showing that Ong-Sitco did not dispute the occurrence of an altercation on December 23, 2008, and it also showed that Sanchez returned several times to clear his employment status. Despite these return attempts, Ong-Sitco ignored Sanchez and did not issue timely warnings or ask him to report for work until the memorandum-letters. The Court noted that the memorandum-letters were sent after the complaint was filed, which the labor tribunals and the Court of Appeals found to be afterthoughts. Under these circumstances, the Court found that Sanchez had not unjustifiably refused to return. It reasoned that abandonment requires both failure to report without valid reason and a clear intention to sever employment, shown by overt acts. Mere failure to report after notice to return was not abandonment. It further held that Sanchez’s immediate filing of the complaint negated any intention to abandon employment.

On dismissal and the alleged grounds for termination, the Court found no valid ground supported by substantial evidence, and it treated the alleged infractions as insufficiently proven. It therefore affirmed the finding of illegal dismissal.

As to the consequence of illegal dismissal, the Supreme Court held that Sanchez was entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights, with full backwages inclusive of allowances, and other benefits or their monetary equivalent, computed from the time compensation was withheld up to actual reinstatement, consistent with Article 279 of the Labor Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 6715.

Separation Pay and Attorney’s Fees; Modification on the Reckoning Date

The Court held that the award of separation pay was proper. It agreed that an illegally dismissed employee is entitled to reinstatement as a matter of right. However, where the atmosphere between employer and employee had already become strained due to antagonism, separation p

...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