Title
Meatworld International, Inc. vs. Hechanova
Case
G.R. No. 208053
Decision Date
Oct 18, 2017
Employee Hechanova constructively dismissed after repeated suspensions, lack of reassignment, and hostile treatment; employer failed to justify actions. Court awarded backwages and separation pay.
illegal dismissal
suspension
violation of regulation

Case Summary (G.R. No. 208053)

Factual Background

The petitioner employed the respondent as head butcher on September 6, 2006, with a salary of P10,600 per month and an assignment at the Robinsons Place Manila outlet at the time of the disputed events. In late 2010 the respondent incurred disciplinary actions: suspensions in November 2010 for undertime and absence, a preventive suspension for alleged sampling of another concessionaire's products, and an alleged ban from certain supermarket branches. After temporary assignment at Robinsons Place Manila ended on January 5, 2011, the respondent was repeatedly told to report to the petitioner’s HR office for reassignment. The respondent reported on January 6, 10, and 13, 2011, but the petitioner informed him that no outlet was then available and, on January 13, 2011, Vice-President Joyce/Jocelyn Alcoreza scolded him and allegedly told him to resign or be dismissed. On January 17, 2011, the respondent sought public assistance through Mr. Raffy Tulfo, obtained a referral to DOLE-CAMANAVA, and filed a Single-Entry Approach form claiming constructive dismissal.

Complaint and Relief Sought

The respondent filed a Complaint for Illegal Dismissal with a claim for reinstatement and backwages before the Labor Arbiter on March 2, 2011, alleging forced resignation and nonassignment that amounted to constructive dismissal. The respondent pursued administrative and quasi-judicial remedies through DOLE and the NLRC before invoking judicial remedies.

Labor Arbiter Decision

The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision dated January 10, 2012, declaring the respondent illegally dismissed and awarding backwages and separation pay in lieu of reinstatement because the work environment was found no longer healthy. The Labor Arbiter did not credit the petitioner’s claim that the respondent failed to return to work and found the petitioner’s accusations against the respondent unsupported. The Labor Arbiter absolved Alcoreza of individual liability for lack of factual or legal basis.

NLRC Decision

On appeal, the NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter in a March 30, 2012 Decision, holding that the totality of circumstances showed the petitioner gave the respondent a hard time to force resignation, and noting the respondent’s immediate recourse to Tulfo as corroborative of his belief that he had been effectively dismissed. The NLRC treated certain allegations against the respondent, such as urination in a storage room, as fabricated for lack of documentation. The NLRC denied the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration in a June 15, 2012 Resolution.

Petition for Certiorari Before the Court of Appeals

The petitioner sought relief from the CA by a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65, Rules of Court. The CA dismissed the petition on September 12, 2012 for procedural infirmities: improper proof of service because registry receipts were not the required proof of service by registered mail under Section 10, Rule 13, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, and lack of competent evidence identifying the affiant and absence of a board resolution authorizing the corporate representative to sign the verification and certificate of non-forum shopping. The CA emphasized that a board resolution or competent evidence of authority must accompany corporate pleadings and certifications. On reconsideration the CA conceded compliance with proof of service but again found the absence of a board resolution and competent evidence of the affiant’s identity, and thus maintained dismissal in its July 3, 2013 Resolution.

Issues Raised in the Supreme Court Petition

In its Rule 45 petition to the Supreme Court, the petitioner asserted that the CA erred in requiring the actual board resolution and that a Secretary’s Certificate sufficed to prove corporate authority. The petitioner further alleged that the CA erred in not resolving the case on the merits and in upholding the NLRC awards, and maintained on the merits that the respondent had failed to report for work and therefore was not dismissed.

Parties’ Contentions Before the Supreme Court

The petitioner argued that a Secretary’s Certificate attesting to the Board’s authorization of Vice-President Alcoreza to sign pleadings and certifications was adequate, that Alcoreza presented competent evidence of identity, and that technical defects, if any, were excusable and should not preclude adjudication on the merits. On the merits the petitioner insisted that the respondent, not the petitioner, failed to report for work. The respondent contended that the case was moot because the judgment had been satisfied by release of the NLRC appeal bond and that the CA correctly dismissed the petition for procedural defects, but maintained that the factual findings of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC were supported by the record.

Supreme Court’s Ruling on Procedural Defects

The Supreme Court found no procedural defects sufficient to dismiss the Rule 65 petition. Applying Corporation Code, Section 23, and pertinent precedent, the Court held that while a board resolution is the primary evidence of corporate authority, a Secretary’s Certificate has been accepted in prior cases as sufficient proof to authorize a corporate officer to represent the corporation in court. The Court also found that Alcoreza presented competent evidence of identity before the notary public by producing a valid Philippine passport. Consequently, the CA erred in dismissing the petition on the procedural grounds it relied upon.

Supreme Court’s Ruling on the Merits

Although the Court found procedural grounds lacking, it denied the petition on the merits. The Court affirmed that the employer bears the burden of proving that termination was for a valid or authorized cause in illegal dismissal cases, and that such burden presupposes an actual dismissal. The Court concluded that the petitioner’s failure to assign the respondent to a new outlet after relieving him from temporary duty on January 5, 2011, without adequate justification, constituted constructive dismissal. The Court applied controlling definitions: constructive dismissal occurs when continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable, or unlikely, or when employer conduct becomes so unbearable that the employee has no option but to forego continued employment (citing Galang v. Malasugui, 683 Phil. 590, 603 (2012), and Blue Dairy Corporation v. NLRC, 373 Phil. 179, 186 (1999)). The Court emphasized that due to the severe consequences for the employee, the employer must prove that no posts were available for reassignment. The petitioner failed to prove that the respondent was effectively barred from all potential outlets except by producing a solitary memorandum from SM Hypermarket; it did not produce evidence that posts elsewhere were filled or that the respondent was banned at Market Market and all Puregold branches, nor did it present HR lists to show lack of vacancies. The memoranda documenting prior infractions showed only that the petitioner regarded the respondent as undesirable; they did not prove absence of available positions. The Court regarded the respondent’s recours

...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