Paulino Ungos III

Lawyer | Law Professor | Author

Tag: fact of dismissal

  • Get Out!

    Gil was hired as a booking salesman for Household Goods Patrons, Inc. (Household Goods) in July 2007. His duties and responsibilities included taking customer orders, collecting payments, and inspecting equipment.

    From May 2012 to August 2013, Gil faced several disciplinary proceedings due to unaccounted amounts, low sales outputs, unremitted collections, poor performance ratings for failing to meet sales targets, and late remittance of sales proceeds.

    Gil stated that on August 29, 2013, a Household Goods officer directed him to report to her office. Gil stated that he was told to resign because he was responsible for the company’s poor performance. Gil denied the accusation, claiming that he had previously been named Salesman of the Year. This enraged the officer of Household Goods, who ordered Gil to leave her office.

    Gil went on to say that the following day, an HR Supervisor of Household Goods asked for his resignation letter and presented him with a calculation of his final pay. Gil stated that, while he objected to the request, his efforts were futile, and he was ordered to surrender all documents and property.

    Household Goods, on the other hand, asserted that Gil was not fired. According to Household Goods, its officer did speak with Gil about his poor performance and unremitted collections, which it viewed as instances of theft and thus valid grounds for his immediate termination. Household Goods claimed to have taken into account Gil’s previous good sales performance as well as the stigma of being fired from his job. As a result, it offered Gil the option of simply resigning and not filing a criminal charge against him for the unremitted amounts. Gil never returned to work after this conversation, according to Household Goods.

    Was Gil illegally dismissed from employment?

    The Supreme Court ruled in the negative. According to the Court, there was no proof that Gil was dismissed from employment.

    The Court reiterated the settled rule that in illegal dismissal cases, before the employer must bear the burden of proving that the dismissal was legal, the employee must first establish by substantial evidence the fact of his dismissal from service. If there is no dismissal, then there can be no question as to its legality or illegality.1Rodriguez v. Sintron Systems, Inc., G.R. No. 240254, July 24, 2019

    The Court also stated that since an allegation is not evidence, it is elementary that a party alleging a critical fact must support his allegation with substantial evidence. Bare allegations of dismissal, when uncorroborated by the evidence on record, cannot be given credence. Moreover, the evidence to prove the fact of dismissal must be clear, positive and convincing.

    In the present case, the Court found that other than his allegation, Gil failed to present any proof that he was dismissed from employment. He failed to present any proof of dismissal or that he was prohibited from returning to work.

    The Court also found that, on the other hand, Household Goods was able to show that Gil was not dismissed from work. According to the Court, with his poor performance, Gil was only given the option to resign instead of being dismissed.

    The Court recognized the fact that giving such an option may be done at the discretion of the employer. According to the Court, a decision to give a graceful exit to an employee rather than to file an action for redress is perfectly within the discretion of an employer. It is not uncommon that an employee is permitted to resign to save face after the exposure of his/her malfeasance.

    In the present case, the Court found that Household Goods’ act of providing Gil the option to gracefully exit considering his prior good sales performance and out of compassion did not constitute dismissal, legal or illegal. The Court added that although Gil did not resign and take the separation pay offered to him, neither did Household Goods initiate disciplinary proceedings to terminate his employment.

    Could Gil be directed to report back to work?

    The Court discussed that generally, when there is no dismissal, the employee should go back to his work and the employer must then accept him because the employment relationship between them was never actually severed.

    Here, considering that Household Goods had from the outset offered to pay separation pay to Gil, and which even Gil himself did not dispute, and that more than seven years had passed since Gil reported for work on September 1, 2013, the Court deemed it just to award separation pay (equivalent to one month salary for every year of service, computed up to the time he stopped working, or until September 1, 2013) in lieu of the directive for him to return to work and for Household Goods to accept him.

    Further reading:

    • Jarabelo v. Household Goods Patrons, Inc., G.R. No. 223163, December 2, 2020.

  • We Were Told That Our Employment Was Terminated

    The employer owned a restaurant and employed Efren and Jeramil as cooks.

    Efren claimed that on December 25, 2011 he rendered only a half day work without prior authorization. Jeramil, in turn, claimed that he did not report for work.

    Efren and Jeramil claimed that because of their attendance on December 25, their employer dismissed them from employment. They averred that when they tried to report for work, their chief cook told them that their employment was already terminated.

    Efren and Jeramil filed their complaint for illegal dismissal against the employer.

    The employer denied dismissing Efren and Jeramil from work. She argued that Efren and Jeramil violated a December 22, 2011 memorandum which disallowed absences on December 25, 26, 31 and January 1 unless justified. The employer added that Efren and Jeramil failed to report for work on December 25, 2011, and returned the following day merely to get their share in the accrued tips, after which they went on absence without leave (AWOL) for the rest of the Christmas season.

    The employer argued that Efren and Jeramil went on AWOL and abandoned their employment after they got wind of her decision to impose disciplinary action against them for their unauthorized absence on December 25, 2011. She claimed that even before any disciplinary action could be imposed on Efren and Jeramil, the latter already filed a complaint for illegal dismissal on January 2, 2012.

    The Office of the Labor Arbiter found that Efren and Jeramil were illegally dismissed from employment. According to the said Office, the employer failed to prove that Efren and Jeramil indeed went on AWOL and that they received a copy of the December 22, 2011 memorandum. The said Office added that since it was Christmas day, Efren and Jeramil had all the reason not to report for work. Finally, the Office of the Labor Arbiter stated that in any case, the absence of Efren and Jeramil on December 25, 2011 should not have warranted their dismissal from employment. Efren and Jeramil were awarded separation pay and backwages.

    The National Labor Relations Commission found that Efren and Jeramil were unable to establish that they were dismissed from employment. The Commission also found that Efren and Jeramil went to the restaurant and received their share on tips on December 26, 2011, then they continued to be absent for the rest of the Christmas season. The Commission held that since Efren and Jeramil failed to prove that their employment was terminated, the complaint for illegal dismissal could not be sustained. Thus, the Commission deleted the awards of separation pay and backwages to Efren and Jeramil.

    The Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling of the Commission.

    Were Efren and Jeramil illegally dismissed from employment?

    The Supreme Court ruled in the negative.

    The Court reiterated established principles as follows:

    In cases of illegal dismissal, the employer bears the burden to prove that the termination was for a valid or authorized cause. But before the employer must bear the burden of proving that the dismissal was legal, it is well-settled that the employees must first establish by substantial evidence that indeed they were dismissed. If there is no dismissal, then there can be no question as to the legality or illegality thereof.1Claudia’s Kitchen, Inc. v. Tanguin, G.R. No. 221096, June 28, 2017.

    In the present case, the Court found no substantial evidence establishing the fact that Efren and Jeramil were dismissed from employment. According to the Court, Efren and Jeramil merely alleged that the chief cook of the employer informed them of their dismissal from employment and that they were barred from entering the restaurant, without offering any evidence to prove the same. The Court added that Efren and Jeramil failed to provide any document, notice of termination or even any letter or correspondence regarding their termination. Said the Court, aside from their bare allegations, they did not present any proof which would at least indicate that they were in fact dismissed.

    The Court instead found that through their timecards, Efren and Jeramil failed to report on December 25, 2011. Through the sign-up sheets, it was shown that they went back to their workplace on the following day merely to get their share in the tips. And through their admission, Efren and Jeramil confirmed that they continued to be on AWOL during “the Christmas season of 2011.

    The Court thus upheld the ruling of the National Labor Relations Commission, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, that no illegal dismissal occurred in this case. Said the Court: “Without substantial evidence that Efren and Jeramil were indeed dismissed, it is futile to determine the legality or illegality of their supposed dismissal.”2Villola v. United Philippine Lines, Inc., G.R. No. 230047, October 9, 2019.

    The Court clarified that the employer was not correct in insisting on Efren and Jeramil’s abandonment of employment. The Court stated that abandonment is a matter of intention and cannot lightly be presumed from certain equivocal acts.3Pu-od v. Ablaze Builders, Inc., G.R. No. 230791, November 20, 2017. The employer must prove that first, the employee failed to report for work for an unjustifiable reason, and second, the overt acts showing the employee’s clear intention to sever their ties with their employer.4Pu-od v. Ablaze Builders, Inc., G.R. No. 230791, November 20, 2017.

    In the present case, the Court did not find proof that the absence of Efren and Jeramil was due to unjustifiable reasons, or that they clearly intended to terminate their employment. The Court stressed that Efren and Jeramil’s act of pre-empting their disciplinary action was insufficient, since “the operative act is still the employees’ ultimate act of putting an end to their employment.”5Pu-od v. Ablaze Builders, Inc., G.R. No. 230791, November 20, 2017.

    The Court mentioned that “in cases where there is both an absence of illegal dismissal on the part of the employer and an absence of abandonment on the part of the employees, the remedy is reinstatement but without backwages.”6Pu-od v. Ablaze Builders, Inc., G.R. No. 230791, November 20, 2017. However, the Court added that since Efren and Jeramil did not pray for such relief, “each party must bear [their] own loss,” placing them on equal footing.7Pu-od v. Ablaze Builders, Inc., G.R. No. 230791, November 20, 2017. For the Court the deletion of the award of separation pay was proper.

    Further reading:

    • Santos, Jr. v. King Chef, G.R. No. 211073, November 25, 2020.