New Ever Marketing, Inc. v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners hired respondents as drivers and delivery man. Respondents filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, overtime pay, premium pay for holidays, service incentive leave, and 13th month pay. They also filed a separate case for non-remittance of SSS premiums. Respondents alleged they were barred from entering the premises, instructed to wait for a certain 'Ding' who would arrive at noon, and subsequently informed they were considered AWOL. Petitioner countered that respondents failed to report for work without leave, sent notices requiring explanation, and subsequently informed them they were deemed to have abandoned their jobs. Petitioner asserted valid termination due to abandonment and compliance with notice requirements. Procedural History: The Labor Arbiter dismissed the illegal dismissal complaint, finding just cause for abandonment and compliance with notice. However, the LA ordered payment of monetary claims. Respondents appealed to the NLRC, which modified the decision, finding petitioner guilty of constructive dismissal and ordering reinstatement with backwages. The Court of Appeals dismissed petitioner's petition for certiorari and denied reconsideration. Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court. The Petition: Petitioner sought to annul the Court of Appeals' Resolutions dismissing its petition for certiorari and denying reconsideration, invoking Rule 65 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 was the proper remedy. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for failure to attach an affidavit of service and for lack of allegations as to material dates. Whether the respondents were illegally dismissed or had abandoned their work. Whether petitioner complied with the procedural due process requirements for termination.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' dismissal of the petition for certiorari, holding that it was the wrong remedy. The Court found that petitioner failed to prove just cause for termination and compliance with procedural due process, thus affirming the finding of constructive dismissal.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the remedy: The petition for certiorari under Rule 65 was dismissed as the wrong remedy. The Court clarified that after the Court of Appeals denied the motion for reconsideration, petitioner had fifteen (15) days to file a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. Filing a second motion for reconsideration, which is a prohibited pleading, did not interrupt the reglementary period for filing under Rule 45. The special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65 cannot be a substitute for a lost remedy of appeal due to the petitioner's own neglect or error in choosing remedies. On the procedural infirmities before the Court of Appeals: The Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition for certiorari for failure to attach an affidavit of service and for lack of allegations as to material dates. The rules clearly require the petitioner to serve copies of the petition on the lower tribunal and adverse parties before filing. Petitioner's claim of excusable mistake in interpreting the rules was untenable, as the provisions were clear and did not admit of other interpretations. The Court emphasized that procedural rules must be followed, and substantial justice cannot be invoked to cure a procedural error occasioned by the party's own fault. On the issue of illegal dismissal and abandonment: The Court found that petitioner failed to prove just cause for termination, specifically abandonment of work. Under the Labor Code, twin requirements for valid dismissal are substantive (just cause) and procedural (opportunity to be heard). Petitioner did not adduce evidence that the notices requiring explanation and informing of termination were actually served on the respondents. Their bare assertion was insufficient to overcome the respondents' declarations of non-receipt. Furthermore, abandonment requires not only absence but also a clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship, which was not sufficiently proven. The respondents' actions, such as reporting for work and filing a complaint for illegal dismissal, demonstrated their intent to continue their employment. Article 277(b) of the Labor Code places the burden of proving that termination was for a valid or authorized cause on the employer. Petitioner failed to discharge this burden, meaning the dismissal was not justified. Consequently, the respondents are entitled to reinstatement with full backwages from the time of their illegal dismissal until actual reinstatement, as provided under Article 279 of the Labor Code. On compliance with procedural due process: The Court reiterated that two notices are required for termination: one stating the cause for termination to allow the employee to be heard, and another informing the employee of the decision to terminate. Petitioner failed to present evidence of service and receipt of these notices by the respondents. The respondents' testimony that they were barred from entering the premises and made to wait for an indefinite period, coupled with their immediate filing of a complaint, indicated that they were constructively dismissed. Constructive dismissal occurs when continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable, or unlikely.
Main Doctrine
An employee filing a complaint for illegal dismissal with a prayer for reinstatement is proof of their desire to return to work, negating the employer's charge of abandonment. Mere absence or failure to report for work, after notice to return, is not enough to amount to abandonment, as it requires a deliberate, unjustified refusal to resume employment.