Title
Nightowl Watchman and Security Agency, Inc. vs. Lumahan
Case
G.R. No. 212096
Decision Date
Oct 14, 2015
Security guard Lumahan claimed illegal dismissal; employer denied, citing abandonment. SC ruled no dismissal, awarded separation pay due to impractical reinstatement.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 212096)

Background and Factual Antecedents

Lumahan commenced his employment with Nightowl in December 1996, with his last assignment at Steelworld Manufacturing Corporation. In January 2000, he filed a labor complaint alleging illegal dismissal and several claims relating to wages and benefits. Following a series of claims and amendments to his original complaint, Lumahan indicated he had not reported to work during a specific period due to a personal emergency but asserted that he had permission from Steelworld. Nightowl contested this claim, arguing that Lumahan abandoned his post and asserting that he had not been dismissed.

Labor Arbiter's Initial Ruling

The initial decision from Labor Arbiter Pablo C. Espiritu, Jr. on April 15, 2002, dismissed Lumahan's illegal dismissal claim, finding he had not been dismissed but was indeed entitled to several wage-related claims against Nightowl. This conclusion was based on the security report indicating Lumahan had abandoned his post and the lack of supporting evidence for his claims of dismissal.

Appeals and NLRC Decision

Both parties appealed the Labor Arbiter's decision, and the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) subsequently remanded the case for further evaluation. On December 15, 2004, a different Labor Arbiter, Gaudencio P. Demaisip, Jr., ruled that Lumahan had been illegally dismissed, ordering Nightowl to provide backpay and separation pay but dismissing his other claims. Nightowl's appeal led the NLRC to overturn this decision on August 31, 2010, determining that Lumahan had not been dismissed and suggesting that he had voluntarily terminated his employment.

Court of Appeals' Finding of Grave Abuse

Lumahan's subsequent appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA) led to a September 18, 2013 ruling, which found that the NLRC had committed grave abuse of discretion by failing to recognize Lumahan's illegal dismissal due to Nightowl's failure to provide him with a notice to report for work. The CA ruled in favor of Lumahan, reverting back to the previous findings of Labor Arbiter Demaisip.

Nightowl's Petition for Review

In seeking a review of the CA's decision, Nightowl asserted that the CA erred in its interpretation of the facts and the burden of proof regarding Lumahan's alleged illegal dismissal. Nightowl challenged the CA's inclination to favor the findings of Labor Arbiter Demaisip over those of the NLRC, arguing for a need for substantial evidence concerning the factual basis of Lumahan’s claims.

Respondent's Position

In response, Lumahan contended that Nightowl's petition was procedurally defective for failing to include certain required documents and for not impleading the CA. He emphasized that Nightowl's failure to issue a report-to-work notice illustrated a constructive dismissal scenario, where he was effectively forced to resign.

Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court partially granted Nightowl's petition, stating that the CA adopted an erroneous approach by presupposing that Lumahan had been dismissed without first validating that a

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.