Roxas Surveying Co. v. National Labor Relations Commission
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Private respondent Mathew Leonardo filed a complaint against petitioner Rolando Roxas Surveying Company for illegal dismissal, unpaid wages, and unpaid per diems. The Labor Arbiter found that Leonardo was illegally dismissed and ordered his reinstatement with back salaries and emergency allowance, while denying claims for unpaid wages and per diems. 2. Procedural History: The petitioner appealed the Labor Arbiter's decision to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). The NLRC modified the decision, ordering the petitioner to pay two years of backwages and one month's separation pay, affirming the rest of the Labor Arbiter's ruling. After the NLRC denied its motion for reconsideration, the petitioner filed the present petition. 3. The Petition: The petitioner filed a petition for certiorari, seeking to delete the award of two years' backwages from the NLRC's decision. The petitioner argued that Leonardo's dismissal was due to anomalous conduct and dishonesty, making reinstatement and backwages inappropriate. They also contended that Leonardo was employed for a specific cadastral survey project without a fixed term, allowing termination without cause. The petitioner cited the NLRC's finding that reinstatement was imprudent and impracticable as support for deleting backwages.
Issue(s)
Whether the private respondent was a regular employee or an apprentice. Whether the alleged anomalous conduct and dishonesty of the private respondent constituted just cause for dismissal. Whether the award of two years' backwages was proper.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed for lack of merit, and the temporary restraining order is lifted. The decision of the NLRC is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the private respondent was a regular employee or an apprentice: The Court held that the private respondent was a regular employee. The letter to Engineer Morales to assess the capabilities of the private respondent was insufficient to establish an apprenticeship. There was no written agreement to that effect. On the contrary, the private respondent was hired based on his extensive experience as a surveyor, was given a salary, and supervised other employees, all indicating he was a regular employee under Article 281 of the Labor Code. For an employee to be considered an apprentice, the employer must clearly and in writing state this engagement. On whether the alleged anomalous conduct and dishonesty constituted just cause for dismissal: The Court found no merit in the petitioner's claim that the private respondent asked for money from people whose lands were being surveyed. This was not supported by evidence, as the only witness did not confront the private respondent nor present the alleged victims. Furthermore, the petitioner's argument that the private respondent failed to disclose a conviction for malversation was not substantiated with evidence in the records presented to the Court. Therefore, these alleged grounds did not constitute just cause for dismissal under Article 283 of the Labor Code. On whether the award of two years' backwages was proper: The Court found merit in the Solicitor General's submission that considering the circumstances and the apparent bad faith of the petitioner in dismissing the private respondent, the award of backwages was in consonance with justice, reason, and equity. The private respondent and his family likely underwent difficulties during his lay-off, and it was not shown that he found alternative means of livelihood. Thus, the NLRC's award of backwages was justified.
Main Doctrine
An employer must clearly and in writing state if an employee is engaged as an apprentice; otherwise, the employee is presumed to be a regular employee entitled to termination only for just cause. The unauthorized collection of money from people whose lands were being surveyed, if not substantiated by evidence, does not constitute just cause for dismissal.