Case Summary (G.R. No. 206942)
Applicable Law
The case is adjudicated under the provisions of the 1987 Philippine Constitution and relevant provisions in the Labor Code of the Philippines, particularly concerning illegal dismissal, employee rights to security of tenure, and the concept of abandonment of work.
Factual Background
Tatel was employed by JLFP as a security guard in 1998 and worked twelve hours a day for a salary of P12,400. He filed a complaint for underpayment against JLFP and its officers on October 14, 2009. Shortly thereafter, on October 24, 2009, he was placed on "floating status," leading him to file a separate complaint for illegal dismissal on May 4, 2010. The respondents contended that Tatel was removed from his post due to multiple infractions and was reassigned before his claim of abandonment. A November 26, 2009 memorandum directed him to report back to work, which Tatel claimed he did not receive, leading to assertions from respondents that he abandoned his employment.
Labor Arbiter's Ruling
The Labor Arbiter ruled on September 20, 2010, dismissing Tatel's illegal dismissal claim due to his inconsistent statements regarding employment details. This decision was appealed to the NLRC.
NLRC Ruling
On February 9, 2011, the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter's decision, declaring Tatel illegally dismissed and directing his reinstatement, along with various monetary awards. The NLRC reasoned that Tatel's long tenure did not support a claim of abandonment, noting the absence of substantial evidence from the respondents.
CA Ruling
The Court of Appeals, on November 14, 2012, reversed the NLRC, reinstating the Labor Arbiter’s decision and stating that Tatel's inconsistent statements undermined his claims. The CA held that the reassignment from SKI to IPVG further proved he was not dismissed and ruled that Tatel’s failure to respond to the November 26 memorandum indicated abandonment.
Proceedings Before the Supreme Court
The Court ruled on February 25, 2015, recognizing Tatel’s constructive dismissal and reinstating the NLRC decision, affirming his claim for backwages and other payments due to the lack of valid dismissal.
Motion for Reconsideration
Respondents filed a motion for reconsideration on grounds that Tatel's status and actions constituted abandonment rather than dismissal. Tatel countered the motion, asserting that the Court’s decision was well-founded and procedurally sound.
Court's Ruling on Motion for Reconsideration
The Supreme Court ruled that the employer bears the burden to prove that an employee was not dismissed or, if dismissed, that the dismissal was lawful. The Court revisited the facts, emphasizing that Tatel received a return-to-work memorandum on November 26, 200
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 206942)
Background of the Case
- The case involves petitioner Vicente C. Tatel and respondents JLFP Investigation and Security Agency, Inc. (JLFP), Jose Luis F. Pamintuan, and Paolo C. Turno.
- The motion for reconsideration was filed by the respondents against the Court's decision, which had found Tatel to be constructively dismissed and entitled to monetary awards.
Facts of the Case
- Tatel was employed by JLFP as a security guard starting March 14, 1998, with a monthly salary of P12,400.00.
- He filed a complaint on October 14, 2009, alleging underpayment of salaries, non-payment of benefits, and attorney’s fees.
- Respondents placed him on "floating status" on October 24, 2009, after which he filed another complaint for illegal dismissal on May 4, 2010.
- Respondents claimed that Tatel was dismissed due to infractions and later reassigned to different posts before being placed on floating status.
- Tatel contended that he was ignored after receiving a memorandum directing him to report back to work.
Labor Arbiter's Ruling
- The Labor Arbiter dismissed Tatel's complaint for illegal dismissal on September 20, 2010, citing Tatel's inconsistent statements regarding his employment details.
- The inconsistencies pertained to dates of employment and salary amounts, leading the Labor Arbiter to conclude that Tatel's claims lacked merit.
NLRC Ruling
- The NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter's decision on February 9, 2011, ruling that Tatel had been illega