Title
Lusabia vs. Super K Drug Corp.
Case
G.R. No. 223314
Decision Date
Jul 15, 2020
Employees of Super K Drug Store filed a labor complaint alleging illegal dismissal, underpayment, and illegal deductions. The Supreme Court ruled in their favor, finding illegal dismissal due to lack of due process and awarding back wages, separation pay, and reimbursement of deductions.
illegal dismissal
underpayment
court ruling
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. 223314)

Factual Background: Employment Practices and the Labor Complaint

Petitioners claimed that despite signing payroll documents, they were not provided pay slips, and the payroll showed wage figures that allegedly exceeded what they received in actual pay. They further alleged that they were made to shoulder losses from theft and robberies in the drugstore, and that they requested the assignment of a security guard but management allegedly ignored their pleas. They also alleged that a P500.00 cash bond was deducted from their salaries, which was released in full at the end of each year prior to 2010, but beginning 2010 the private respondents no longer released the deducted cash bonds.

In January 2012, petitioners filed their labor complaint for money claims before the NLRC-SENA. Before the SENA proceedings concluded, petitioner Lusabia was allegedly directed by respondent owner Kristine to come to the latter’s residence and was allegedly forced to withdraw the labor complaint, under threat of dismissal if she refused. Petitioners Barrera and Contreras received similar directives. The three refused to withdraw their complaints. Petitioners asserted that, as a consequence, they were dismissed from employment and prohibited from entering the work premises, with threats that criminal charges for trespassing would be filed if they returned.

Petitioners also claimed that after a second SENA hearing, Kristine announced a willingness to pay salary differentials but allegedly did not promise overtime pay. Petitioners then proceeded to the Trade Union Congress of the Philippines (TUCP) for assistance to pursue a labor complaint with the NLRC. They alleged that after Kristine learned of this, the remaining petitioners—Acsayan, Alimonsurin, Denaga, and Vergabera—were also dismissed. Petitioners amended their complaint to include illegal dismissal.

Respondents’ Version: No Prohibition to Return and Registered Return-to-Work Notices

Private respondents denied that petitioners were prevented from reporting to work. They asserted that on February 1, 2012, petitioners no longer reported for work. Respondents claimed they sent Return to Work Notices by registered mail during the pendency of the NLRC-SENA proceedings to allow resolution of grievances. Respondents maintained that none of the petitioners replied to the notices and that no settlement resulted in SENA. They also emphasized that petitioners failed to report for work.

Labor Arbiter’s Decision: No Established Fact of Dismissal

In a Decision dated July 27, 2012, the LA dismissed the complaint. The LA ruled that petitioners’ dismissal was not established. It found that return-to-work notices were duly sent to petitioners and observed that if petitioners had truly been dismissed, respondents would not have sent such notices. Petitioners did not deny that registered mail notices existed, and they did not adequately explain their failure to comply with employer directives. The LA considered their claim of denial of entry as largely self-serving, and it treated an affidavit executed by a TUCP employee as hearsay because the affiant did not possess personal knowledge that petitioners were actually prevented from returning to work. The LA also denied the money claims. It held that respondents submitted voluminous records showing payment of salaries in accordance with law, and it treated petitioners’ affidavits of former employees as hearsay that did not repudiate payroll documents. As to alleged illegal salary deductions, the LA found no proof of the occurrence of theft and robberies.

NLRC Reversal: Illegal Dismissal and Monetary Underpayment

Petitioners appealed. The NLRC reversed and set aside the LA’s decision. The NLRC held that petitioners did not abandon their employment, reasoning that immediately filing a labor complaint was inconsistent with abandonment. The NLRC credited petitioners’ theory that they were prevented from returning to work. It considered the affidavits and SENA proceedings, noting that return-to-work notices dated February 6, 2012 and February 27, 2012 were sent via registered mail but that respondents failed to prove receipt by petitioners. The NLRC observed that DOLE hearings and conciliatory proceedings were held on several dates during February, March, and April 2012, where petitioners appeared. It found suspicious respondents’ failure to furnish the notices or return-to-work orders during those hearings.

The NLRC ruled that respondents failed to observe the twin notice rule, thus petitioners were illegally dismissed. The NLRC also found underpayment reflected in the SSS Employee Static Information, reasoning that it represented the salaries mandatorily reported by respondents. It concluded that petitioners were entitled to unpaid salaries, thirteenth month pay, and commutation of service incentive leave. The NLRC additionally ruled that salary deductions violated Article 113 of the Labor Code. It ordered reinstatement, back wages, salary differentials, labor benefits, and reimbursement of illegal deductions and unreleased cash bonds.

CA Ruling Under Rule 65: Reinstatement Denied and Money Claims Dismissed

Respondents sought certiorari before the CA under Rule 65. On September 29, 2015, the CA reinstated the LA’s decision. It held that respondents proved that petitioners were made to report back to work. It considered petitioners’ disobedience to return-to-work directives as indicative of an intent to sever employment. It also held that petitioners failed to report and relied primarily on an affidavit from a TUCP employee, which the CA found unsubstantiated against the documentary evidence submitted by respondents.

The CA ruled that although abandonment requires compliance with labor’s twin notice requirement, respondents’ inability to comply fully could not overcome the evidence of petitioners’ refusal and neglect of duty. It further found that petitioners were not entitled to the labor tribunal’s money awards. It held that payrolls bearing petitioners’ signatures were the best evidence of actual salaries paid. It treated the SSS Employee Static Information as insufficient to show actual payment of correct wages because it indicated remittances pursuant to SSS requirements rather than actual wages received. It also rejected the deductions claim, finding that photographs showing the alleged robber did not prove that illegal deductions were in fact made on petitioners’ salaries.

Issues on Review

Petitioners maintained that they were illegally dismissed. They argued that abandonment could not be inferred from their actions because they showed willingness to return by appearing in conciliatory proceedings and by filing an illegal dismissal case after alleged denial of entry. They also argued that they were not aware of return-to-work notices, and respondents failed to prove their receipt. Petitioners further contended that the SSS Employee Static Information should have been given credence and that petitioners were forced to sign payrolls that did not reflect actual amounts received, entitling them to salary differentials, thirteenth month pay, service incentive leave benefits, and amounts corresponding to unauthorized deductions and unreleased cash bonds.

Disposition of the Supreme Court: Illegal Dismissal; Incomplete Payroll Records; Monetary Awards with Computation

The Supreme Court held that the employer bears the burden of proving that dismissal is for a just or authorized cause. It found that respondents failed to prove an abandonment dismissal because respondents did not establish the fact of receipt of the return-to-work notice dated February 6, 2012. The Court observed that copies of registry return cards lacked petitioners’ or authorized persons’ signatures, which should have signified acknowledgment of receipt. It also noted that the return cards were not accompanied by certification from the postmaster as to receipt. The Court rejected any presumption of receipt based solely on unsigned registry return cards.

The Court further reasoned that all notices were sent to one mailing address, “87-D 7th Avenue Murphy Socorro, Cubao, QC,” and that two envelopes bore markings “RTS 3-26-12” and “RTS” indicating return to sender. Respondents did not explain why all seven petitioners were sent notices to a single postal address. Neither did respondents show that notices bearing the “RTS 3-26-12” marking were resent or delivered to an address different from the address used for the initial mailing. The Court noted, as the NLRC did, that SENA hearings and conciliatory proceedings were held on specified dates—February 3, 10, and 22; March 22 and 29; and April 17 and 24, 2012—where petitioners appeared. Respondents could have furnished the return-to-work notices during these proceedings but did not. Based on these circumstances, the Court concluded that petitioners did not receive the return-to-work notices and therefore could not have violated a return-to-work order.

The Court held that sending return-to-work notices during the pendency of SENA showed that no prior written or oral notice was given to petitioners. The return-to-work notices dated February 6, 2012, during SENA, were thus treated as an attempt to cure respondents’ prior failure to order petitioners to return to work. It found that petitioners’ refusal or non-compliance, absent proof of notice, could not establish abandonment. To prove abandonment, the employer must show that the employee unjustifiably refused to report for work and that the employee deliberately intended to sever the employer-employee relationship. Intent to sever is proven through overt acts, and absence from work even after a notice is insufficient to show abandonment. The Court found no records indicating that petitioners’ failure to report reflected a clear intent to sever their employment. Instead, petitioners filed grievances for underpayment, non-payment of labor benefits, and illegal deductions, which showed the

...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