Fernandez v. Newfield Staff Solutions, Inc.
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners Gilda C. Fernandez and Bernadette A. Beltran were hired by respondent Newfield Staff Solutions, Inc. (Newfield). Fernandez was hired as Recruitment Manager on September 30, 2008, and Beltran as probationary Recruitment Specialist on October 7, 2008. Their employment agreements stipulated a guaranteed performance for six months, with liability for liquidated damages for breach, and a 45-day written notice requirement for termination after the guaranteed period. On October 17, 2008, respondent Arnold "Jay" Lopez, Jr., Newfield's General Manager, allegedly terminated their employment, instructing them to turn over records to their successors. A week later, petitioners received return-to-work letters dated October 22, 2008, stating they were absent without leave since October 20, 2008, and directing them to report and explain their failure to file resignation letters. Petitioners responded with demand letters claiming unpaid salaries and expenses, and asserting they were told to file resignation letters despite accomplishments. Failing to receive favorable action, they filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, nonpayment of salary and overtime pay, reimbursement of cell phone billing, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees. Procedural History: The Labor Arbiter ruled that the dismissal was illegal, ordering payment of salary from dismissal to promulgation, separation pay, unpaid salaries and allowances, and attorney's fees. The NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter's decision with modification, limiting back wages to six months as per their contracts. Respondents filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA reversed the NLRC, dismissing the complaint and ruling that petitioners abandoned their jobs and pre-terminated their employment agreements, finding that the meeting on October 17, 2008, did not prove dismissal but rather their inability to accept constructive criticism. The Petition: Petitioners appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the CA erred in dismissing their complaint for illegal dismissal and reversing the findings of the NLRC and Labor Arbiter. They contended they were dismissed without just cause and due process.
Issue(s)
Whether the petitioners were illegally dismissed from employment. Whether the petitioners abandoned their jobs. Whether respondent Arnold "Jay" Lopez, Jr. is solidarily liable with respondent Newfield Staff Solutions, Inc.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed and set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals, and reinstated and upheld the decision of the NLRC. It clarified that respondent Arnold "Jay" Lopez, Jr. is not solidarily liable with respondent Newfield Staff Solutions, Inc.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the petitioners were illegally dismissed from employment: The Court found that the petitioners were illegally dismissed. It noted that the respondents' verified position paper and reply did not deny the petitioners' claim that Lopez, Jr. fired them on October 17, 2008, and ordered them to turn over records to their successors. The Court cited the principle that silence in the face of an accusation that naturally calls for action or comment constitutes an admission. Furthermore, the respondents' denial in their comment before the Supreme Court that such an incident took place was not raised in their earlier pleadings, making it suspect. The Court also considered the affidavit of Josette Pasman, which indicated that petitioners were no longer employed. The Court clarified that the employment agreements were not fixed-term contracts but rather involved probationary employees who guaranteed performance for six months, with liability for liquidated damages for breach. The Court concluded that the absence of petitioners was due to their dismissal, not abandonment, and their subsequent demand letters and filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal demonstrated their intent to continue working, negating any suggestion of abandonment. The Court found it unreasonable for employees earning substantial salaries to abandon their jobs unless illegally dismissed. On whether the petitioners abandoned their jobs: The Court ruled that the petitioners were not guilty of abandonment. It explained that abandonment requires two factors: failure to report for work without a valid reason and a clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship, with the latter being the more determinative factor. The Court found that the petitioners' absence was because they were fired, thus they cannot be faulted for not complying with return-to-work letters and instead sending demand letters. Their protest of dismissal through demand letters and the filing of an illegal dismissal complaint proved they had no intention to sever the employment relationship. The Court emphasized that the immediate filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal is inconsistent with abandonment and serves as proof of a desire to return to work. On whether respondent Arnold "Jay" Lopez, Jr. is solidarily liable with respondent Newfield Staff Solutions, Inc.: The Court clarified that Lopez, Jr. is not solidarily liable with Newfield. It explained that corporate officers incur solidary liability only under exceptional circumstances, such as when they vote for or assent to patently unlawful acts, act in bad faith or with gross negligence, or when the termination of employment is done with malice or in bad faith. The Court noted that the Labor Arbiter and NLRC did not find Lopez, Jr. guilty of malice or bad faith. Therefore, there was no basis to hold him solidarily liable, and the payment of the judgment award is the direct accountability of Newfield.
Main Doctrine
An employee who immediately files a complaint for illegal dismissal after termination cannot be deemed to have abandoned their job, as the filing of the complaint is proof of their desire to return to work. Furthermore, corporate officers are not solidarily liable with the corporation for termination of employment unless there is evidence of malice or bad faith.