FACTS: Celso E.
Fuentes, a security guard by Protective designated at Post 33. On July 20,
2000, NPA ransacked Post 33 and took some firearms, Agency-issued uniforms and
personal items. On the same day, Fuentes and his fellow security guards reported
the raid to the PNP.
However, a complaint for robbery committed by a band
against Fuentes was filed due to the affidavit of Lindo, Jr. and Cempron that
Fuentes conspired and acted in consort with the New People’s Army basing.
While was Fuentes was detained, he alleged that he was
"mauled and tied up by the security officers of [Protective]." To
preserve proof of these claims, Fuentes had pictures taken of his injuries
while in custody and acquired a medical certificate detailing his injuries. But
On August 15, 2001, the OPP of dismissed due to lack of Probable cause.
Fuentes ,right after the criminal complaint was dismissed,
demanded to return to work but he was refused entry on the ground that he was a
member of the NPA and that his position had already been filled up by another
security guard.
Hence, On March 14, 2002, Fuentes filed the Complaint
"for illegal dismissal, nonpayment of salaries, overtime pay, premium pay
for holiday and rest day, 13th month pay, service incentive leave and damages
against Protective.
On their part petitioner alleged that Fuentes abandoned his
work and that he only filed for illegal dismissal after 6 mos.
ISSUES: 1.
Whether or not Fuentes abandoned his work to constitute legal dismissal.
2. Whether
or not Fuentes belatedly filed his complaint.
3. Whether
or not respondent is entitled to backwages.
4. Whether
or not Respondent’s right to procedural due process was observed.
HELD: 1. The
absence of respondent does not constitute abandonment.
Abandonment constitutes a just cause for dismissal because
"[t]he law in protecting the rights of the laborer, authorizes neither
oppression nor self-destruction of the employer." The employer cannot be
compelled to maintain an employee who is remiss in fulfilling his duties to the
employer, particularly the fundamental task of reporting to work.
However in the case of Agabon v. National Labor Relations
Commission, this court discussed the concept of abandonment:
Abandonment is the deliberate and unjustified refusal of an
employee to resume his employment. It is a form of neglect of duty, hence, a
just cause for termination of employment by the employer. For a valid finding
of abandonment, these two factors should be present: (1) the failure to report
for work or absence without valid or justifiable reason; and (2) a clear
intention to sever employer-employee relationship, with the second as the more
determinative factor which is manifested by overt acts from which it may be
deduced that the employees has no more intention to work. The intent to
discontinue the employment must be shown by clear proof that it was deliberate
and unjustified.
In the present case, According to petitioner, respondent’s
actions constitute a failure to report to work without a valid and justifiable
reason. The respondent’s failure to return to work was justified because of his
detention and its adverse effects. Moreover, while in the custody of the
police, he suffered physical violence in the hands of its employees. Thus, the
intervening period when respondent failed to report for work, from respondent’s
prison release to the time he actually reported for work, was justified. Since
there was a justifiable reason for respondent’s absence, the first element of
abandonment was not established.
For the second element, Petitioner alleges that since
respondent "vanished" and failed to report immediately to work, he
clearly intended to sever ties with petitioner.
However, respondent reported for work after August 15,
2001, when the criminal Complaint against him was dropped but petitioner
refused to allow respondent to resume his employment because petitioner
believed that respondent was a member of the New People’s Army and had already
hired a replacement.
Respondent’s
act of reporting for work after being cleared of the charges against him showed
that he had no intention to sever ties with his employer.
Thus,
respondent’s actions showed that he intended to resume working for petitioner. The
second element of abandonment was not proven, as well.
2. The six-month period from the alleged date of dismissal
by petitioner to the date of filing of the complaint is justified.
In Arriola v. Pilipino Star Ngayon, Inc., this court made
the distinction between money claims under Article 291 and the claims for
backwages under Article 1146 of the Civil Code:
Art. 291. MONEY CLAIMS. All money claims arising from
employer-employee relations accruing during the effectivity of this Code shall
be filed within three (3) years from the time the cause of action accrued;
otherwise they shall be forever barred.
Article 291 covers claims for overtime pay, holiday pay,
service incentive leave pay, bonuses, salary differentials, and illegal
deductions by an employer. It also covers money claims arising from seafarer
contracts.
The provision, however, does not cover "money
claims" consequent to an illegal dismissal such as backwages. It also does
not cover claims for damages due to illegal dismissal. These claims are
governed by Article 1146 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, which provides:
Art. 1146. The following actions must be instituted
within four years: (1) Upon injury to
the rights of the plaintiff[.]
This four-year prescriptive period applies to claims for
backwages, not the three-year prescriptive period under Article 291 of the
Labor Code. A claim for backwages, according to this court, may be a money
claim "by reason of its practical effect." Legally, however, an award
of backwages "is merely one of the reliefs which an illegally dismissed
employee prays the labor arbiter and the NLRC to render in his favor as a
consequence of the unlawful act committed by the employer." Though it
results "in the enrichment of the individual [illegally dismissed], the
award of backwages is not in redress of a private right, but, rather, is in the
nature of a command upon the employer to make public reparation for his
violation of the Labor Code." Actions for damages due to illegal dismissal
are likewise actions "upon an injury to the rights of the plaintiff."
Article 1146 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, therefore, governs these
actions.
Petitioner admits that respondent filed the Complaint for
illegal dismissal six (6) months after the first time petitioner had refused to
allow respondent to work. This is well within the four-year prescriptive period
provided by Article 1146 of the Labor Code, as mentioned in Arriola.
In this case, the six-month period from the date of
dismissal to the filing of the Complaint was well within reason and cannot be
considered "inexcusable delay." The cases filed before the courts and
administrative tribunals originate from human experience. Thus, this court will
give due consideration to the established facts which would justify the gap of
six (6) months prior to the filing of the complaint.
3. Applying
the doctrine of "no work, no pay," the computation of backwages
should only begin from the date of the filing of the Complaint.
The SC applied the case of Standard Electric wherein
respondent was not entitled to the entirety of the backwages during the time of
his detention
Hence, respondent is not entitled to backwages from August
15, 2001, the date of the Resolution dismissing the Complaint against
respondent. Absent proof of the actual date that respondent first reported for
work and was refused by petitioner, the date of the filing of the Complaint
should serve as the basis from which the computation of backwages should begin.
Thus, this court finds that respondent is entitled to full backwages starting
only on March 14, 2002 until actual reinstatement.
4. Respondent’s
right to procedural due process was not observed.
The two-notice requirement was not followed. There was no
attempt from petitioner to serve the proper notice on respondent at the address
contained in its employment records. Respondent was replaced without being
given an 'opportunity to explain his absence.
Comments
Post a Comment