Title
Simon vs. Results Companies
Case
G.R. No. 249351-52
Decision Date
Mar 29, 2022
Petitioner, a BPO employee, claimed illegal dismissal; SC ruled her a regular employee, awarded backwages, separation pay, and attorney’s fees, but denied damages due to lack of bad faith.
illegal dismissal
forced resignation
backwages
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. 249351-52)

Complaint and Employment Allegations

Petitioner alleged that Results hired her on October 6, 2012 and that it forced her to resign on December 13, 2012. To support her claim of employment, she submitted copies of her identification card and payslips. The complaint was filed on October 18, 2016.

Results countered that, after it was notified of the complaint, it searched its employment records and found none corresponding to petitioner. It attributed the absence of records to petitioner’s alleged short stint of service of two months and seven days and to the fact that petitioner filed her complaint four years after the alleged dismissal. Results further argued that petitioner’s narrative of constructive dismissal was incredible because she did not file immediately, and that her delayed filing showed lack of merit. It also contended that it could not have terminated her because a probationary period of two months was insufficient for assessment for regularization. Results thus maintained that petitioner’s separation from work was either a voluntary resignation or absence without official leave (AWOL), which it described as common among call center agents transferring between BPO companies.

Proceedings Before the Labor Arbiter

In a Decision dated March 21, 2017, the LA ruled in favor of petitioner and held that Results illegally dismissed her. However, the LA treated petitioner as a probationary employee and limited backwages to the remaining months of her probationary period. The LA also ruled that petitioner’s monetary claims had prescribed because the complaint was filed beyond the three-year prescriptive period from the time the cause of action accrued.

Both parties appealed the LA ruling to the NLRC. Results argued that petitioner was not entitled to backwages because she failed to prove the fact of dismissal. Petitioner questioned the LA’s computation of backwages and her non-entitlement to moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees.

Ruling of the NLRC

On March 21, 2017, the NLRC agreed with the LA that petitioner was a probationary employee of Results and that she was illegally dismissed. Consistent with its probationary characterization, it ordered that backwages be computed only for the remaining period of probationary employment. It partially granted petitioner’s appeal by adjusting the monthly backwages rate from P13,500.00 to P15,200.00.

The NLRC dismissed Results’ appeal for lack of merit. Petitioner and Results filed motions for reconsideration, but the NLRC dismissed both in resolutions dated April 17, 2017 and June 29, 2017.

Petitions for Certiorari Before the Court of Appeals

Aggrieved, both parties filed separate petitions for certiorari before the CA. In its Decision dated March 28, 2019, the CA reversed and set aside the LA and NLRC rulings. It held that petitioner was actually a regular employee of Results because: first, her job was necessary and desirable to Results’ line of business; and second, Results failed to inform petitioner of the reasonable standards for regularization.

Nevertheless, the CA ruled that petitioner failed to prove the fact of her dismissal from employment. It stated that the case involved neither dismissal nor abandonment and that, with no dismissal or abandonment to speak of, the status quo between employer and employee should be maintained. The CA thus ordered Results to reinstate petitioner to her previous position without payment of backwages. The CA’s Resolution dated September 12, 2019 denied reconsideration.

Issues Raised in the Supreme Court

The core issue presented for the Supreme Court’s review was whether the CA erred in declaring that petitioner was a regular employee of Results and that she was illegally dismissed from employment, in light of the CA’s finding that petitioner failed to prove the fact of dismissal.

Supreme Court Review and the Standard for Grave Abuse of Discretion

The Supreme Court recognized that petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45 ordinarily resolve questions of law. It also noted an exception when the factual findings of the CA and the labor tribunals are contradictory. Here, the labor tribunals concluded that petitioner was a probationary employee who was illegally dismissed, while the CA held that petitioner was deemed a regular employee but failed to prove dismissal.

The Court explained that in labor cases reviewed under Rule 45 via certiorari, it examines whether the CA correctly determined the presence or absence of grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC. Grave abuse of discretion exists when NLRC findings and conclusions are not supported by substantial evidence, meaning relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. Such grave abuse warrants certiorari relief.

Probationary Employment and the Regularization Standards

The Supreme Court agreed with the CA that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion when it ruled that petitioner was merely probationary. It reiterated the doctrinal definition of probationary employment: the employer places an employee on trial to determine fitness for regularization. During probation, the employer observes fitness, while the employee must demonstrate qualification for permanent employment.

The Court emphasized that an essential element of probationary employment is that the employer must inform the employee of the reasonable standards for regularization at the time of engagement. Under Section 6(d), Rule I, Book VI of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, as amended by Department Order No. 147-15, failure to make those standards known at the time of engagement renders the employee a regular employee. Citing Moral v. Momentum Properties Management Corp., the Court held that the employer must satisfy two requirements: communication of the regularization standards and communication at the time of engagement. Communication is deemed made known when the employer exerts reasonable efforts to apprise the employee of what is expected during probation, and the only exception applies to self-descriptive jobs (such as maids, cooks, drivers, and messengers).

In the case, Results initially denied that petitioner was its employee. After petitioner presented her identification card and payslips, Results instead asserted that she was a probationary employee who voluntarily resigned or abandoned her job. Having admitted petitioner’s probationary employment, Results bore the burden to prove or at least allege that it communicated the regularization standards. The Court found that Results presented no evidence such as a policy handbook, operations manual, or performance appraisal document and did not allege that it informed petitioner of the regularization criteria. Accordingly, the NLRC’s probationary determination lacked substantial evidence, and petitioner was deemed regular by operation of law.

Fact of Dismissal: Substantial Evidence Established Illegality

While the Supreme Court agreed that petitioner was deemed a regular employee, it disagreed with the CA’s conclusion that petitioner failed to prove dismissal. It aligned with the labor tribunals that petitioner was indeed illegally dismissed.

The Court reiterated the allocation of burdens in dismissal cases: the employer generally bears the burden to prove that dismissal was for a valid or authorized cause, but the employee must first establish by substantial evidence that a dismissal actually occurred. It also stated that without a dismissal, there can be no question as to the legality of dismissal.

Petitioner claimed that an Operations Manager verbally instructed her not to report for work anymore. She presented a photocopy of an SMS conversation with her supervisor, Lester. In that text exchange, Lester informed her that management decided termination and that her inclusion was in a list of non-rehirable call center agents. The Supreme Court reasoned that even if petitioner did not know the specific manager’s name who acted, the content of the messages showed that she was singled out among agents marked non-rehireable, which established the fact of dismissal. The Court further found Results’ allegations that petitioner voluntarily resigned or abandoned her work unavailing because Results presented no resignation letter or evidence that petitioner actually went AWOL.

The Court also rejected the CA’s reasoning that petitioner’s failure to continue reporting could have been due to a mistaken belief that she was dismissed. It reasoned that if petitioner had merely misunderstood, Results could have directed her to return or could have charged her with abandonment. Instead, Results failed to present such measures or corresponding evidence.

The Court thus held that substantial evidence supported the labor tribunals’ finding that petitioner was forced to resign and left without the benefit of a written letter because she was dismissed in a casual manner. The CA therefore committed reversible error when it imputed grave abuse of discretion against the NLRC on the illegal dismissal point.

Monetary Consequences: Separation Pay, Backwages, and Computation Period

Having determined that petitioner was illegally terminated, the Supreme Court addressed entitlement to monetary awards. It grounded the analysis on the constitutional and statutory protection of security of tenure and on Article 294 of the Labor Code, which provides that unjustly dismissed employees are entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and full backwages, inclusive of allowances and benefits, comput

...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