Navarro v. Pajarillo Liner
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: P.V. Pajarillo Liner Inc. (respondent) employed Bernardino V. Navarro (petitioner) as a bus driver. Petitioner was apprehended in March 1996 for picking up passengers in a non-loading zone, leading to the confiscation of his driver's license and issuance of a traffic violation receipt (TVR). He allegedly gave this TVR to respondent's Operations Manager, Arnel Hegina, to redeem his license. Respondent was unable to redeem the license but secured a two-month extension for the TVR's validity. In May 1996, petitioner was again apprehended, and upon returning to the respondent's garage, he was unable to work thereafter. Procedural History: Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with damages against respondent before the Labor Arbiter (LA). The LA ruled in favor of the petitioner, ordering reinstatement with full backwages and incentives, finding that respondent's failure to redeem petitioner's license constituted constructive dismissal. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) modified the decision, ordering reinstatement but without backwages, holding that petitioner, as the license holder, was equally at fault for not taking proper steps to redeem it. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the NLRC's decision, denying backwages because petitioner was the one responsible for redeeming his license, which was necessary for his employment. The Petition: Petitioner seeks review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, arguing that the CA's decision is inconsistent with the doctrine favoring employees, that the CA's findings regarding his responsibility to redeem the license are speculative, and that he is entitled to reinstatement with full backwages due to illegal dismissal. The Supreme Court, however, limited its review to the issue of backwages, acknowledging that the finding of constructive dismissal was settled. The Court ultimately agreed with the NLRC and CA, denying backwages because petitioner was equally at fault for the loss of his TVR and for failing to take proper steps to redeem his license, thus shifting the economic loss to himself.
Issue(s)
Whether the petitioner was constructively dismissed. Whether the petitioner is entitled to backwages.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed, upholding the finding of constructive dismissal but denying backwages.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of constructive dismissal: The Court acknowledges that the finding of constructive dismissal by the Labor Arbiter, which was not appealed by the respondent, is a settled issue. Therefore, the Court's focus is on the entitlement to backwages. The Court notes that while the Labor Arbiter found the respondent obligated to redeem the license, the NLRC and the Court of Appeals held that the petitioner, as the license holder, had the primary responsibility to redeem it. On the issue of entitlement to backwages: The Court finds that the petitioner is not entitled to backwages. The petitioner's claim that he gave the extended TVR to respondent for redemption was belied by his own letter-reply dated August 8, 1996, wherein he admitted that the extended TVR was stolen from him. This admission indicates that the TVR was in his possession until it was stolen, and he did not specify the date of the theft. Crucially, there was no showing that the petitioner reported the loss of the extended TVR to the respondent or to the MMDA before he was asked to explain his prolonged absence. Consequently, the respondent could not be reasonably expected to redeem the petitioner's driver's license when the extended TVR was not in its possession, and the petitioner, as the owner of the license, failed to take proper steps to report the loss and retrieve his license. The Court agrees with the NLRC's conclusion that the petitioner was not faultless, as his violation led to the confiscation of his license, and he failed to take proper steps to redeem it at the soonest possible time when there was no unlawful prevention by the respondent. Therefore, the petitioner should not be paid for the time he was not working, as the failure to work was not due to the employer's fault, and each party must bear their own loss.
Main Doctrine
An employee who fails to take proper steps to recover a confiscated driver's license, particularly by failing to report its loss or the loss of the temporary permit, cannot claim constructive dismissal entitling him to backwages, as the failure to work is attributable to his own fault.