On 9 April 1992, Airborne, a company engaged in providing manpower services to various clients, hired the services of Arnulfo as Janitor. He was assigned at the Balintawak Branch of Meralco, a client of Airborne.
Almost twenty years thereafter, or on 30 June 2011, the contract between Airborne and the Balintawak Branch of Meralco expired. Meralco entered into a new contract with Landbees, which absorbed employees of Airborne except Arnulfo, who allegedly had a heart ailment.
Arnulfo consulted a doctor, who declared that he was in good health and fit to work. He presented a medical certificate to Airborne, but the latter disregarded the same. He also reported for work but Airborne told him that no work was available for him.
Feeling aggrieved, Arnulfo filed a complaint for constructive dismissal on 5 August 2011.
Airborne insisted that Arnulfo was never dismissed from service because:
- when its contract with the Balintawak Branch of Meralco ceased, it directed all its employees, including Arnulfo, to report to its office for reposting;
- when Arnulfo failed to do so, it sent two (2) letters dated 12 August 2011 and 21 September 2011 at Arnulfo’s last known address, directing him to report to his new assignment at Meralco’s Commonwealth Business Center; and
- said letters, however, were returned to sender with a notation “RTS unknown”
The Office of the Labor Arbiter dismissed Arnulfo’s complaint.
Arnulfo appealed and reiterated that he was constructively dismissed by Airborne. He pointed out that:
- He made several follow-ups since 1 July 2011, but Airborne ignored him. He was not given a new assignment since then.
- The letters were products of afterthought since Airborne was already aware of the constructive dismissal complaint prior to the sending of the said letters;
- The letters could not possibly reach him because his address stated therein was incomplete. Arnulfo posits that such mistake was intentionally done for him not to receive the letters; and
- He left his cellphone number with an administrative officer of Airborne, but never received a call from the latter.
Airborne countered that Arnulfo introduced for the first time on appeal new factual allegations, as well as spurious, fabricated and self-serving evidence which should not be given credence.
The National Labor Relations Commission reversed the findings of the Office of the Labor Arbiter and declared that Arnulfo was constructively dismissed from employment.
The Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court agreed with the findings of the Commission.
Ruling:
Arnulfo was constructively dismissed from employment.
The Supreme Court ruled that Airborne denied Arnulfo his employment because he had a heart ailment. Despite the declaration that he was fit to work, Airborne still did not give him any assignment.
To give semblance of legality to their act of not giving him an assignment, Airborne sent him two (2) letters with an incomplete address after the filing of the constructive dismissal complaint. The sending of the letters were products of afterthought. However, an “[a]fterthought cannot be given weight or credibility.”1Skippers United Pacific, Inc. vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 148893, July 12, 2006.
The Court was not convinced of the Airborne’s sincerity to give him a new assignment, for there was reason to believe that the incomplete address was intentionally done so that Arnulfo would not receive it and Airborne can thus set up the defense that it had the intention to have the complainant reposted by sending the letters.
On Airborne’s claim that Arnulfo was only placed on floating status under Article 301 of the Labor Code of the Philippines2ARTICLE 301. (Formerly Article 286) When Employment not Deemed Terminated. — The bonafide suspension of the operation of a business or undertaking for a period not exceeding six (6) months, or the fulfillment by the employee of a military or civic duty shall not terminate employment. In all such cases, the employer shall reinstate the employee to his former position without loss of seniority rights if he indicates his desire to resume his work not later than one (1) month from the resumption of operations of his employer or from his relief from the military or civic duty..
Jurisprudence3Lopez v. Irvine Construction Corp., G.R. No. 207253, August 20, 2014. dictates that:
- The employer must prove the existence of a clear and compelling economic reason for the temporary shutdown of its business or undertaking and that there were no available posts to which the affected employee could be assigned; and
- It should notify the Department of Labor and Employment and the affected employee, at least one month prior to the intended date of suspension of business operations.
The Supreme Court found that Airborne failed to prove that the termination of the contract with Meralco resulted in a bona fide suspension of its business operations so as to validly place Arnulfo in a floating status. Airborne did not show that after the termination of its contract with Meralco, it was faced with a clear and compelling economic reason to temporarily shut down its operations or a particular undertaking. It also failed to show that there were no available posts to which Arnulfo could be assigned.
Airborne also failed to show compliance with the notice requirement to the Department of Labor and Employment and to Arnulfo.
Jurisprudence4Morales v. Harbour Centre Port Terminal, Inc., G.R. No. 174208, January 25, 2012.dictates that constructive dismissal is a dismissal in disguise as it is an act amounting to dismissal but made to appear as if it were not.
In the present case, the Court found that the totality of the foregoing circumstances, specifically, Airborne’s
- failure to prove the bona fide suspension of its business or undertaking;
- failure to inform the Department of Labor and Employment, as well as Arnulfo, of the suspension of its operations,
- act of ignoring Arnulfo’s follow-ups on a new assignment, and
- belated sending of letters/notices which were returned to it
were done to make it appear as if Arnulfo had not been dismissed. According to the Court, such acts, however, clearly amounted to a dismissal, for which Airborne should be liable.
Further reading:
- Airborne Maintenance and Allied Services, Inc. v. Egos, G.R. No. 222748, April 3, 2019.
Lawyer | Law Professor | Author
