Noblejas v. Italian Maritime Academy Phils.
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Dionarto Q. Noblejas (Noblejas) was hired by respondent Italian Maritime Academy Phils., Inc. (IMAPI) as a training instructor/assessor on a contractual basis for three months. After the expiration of the initial contract, he was rehired without a written contract. Noblejas sought a new contract reflecting agreed-upon provisions, including a higher salary (tax excluded) and options for regular employment or sea duty with financial aid. He also requested company contribution to his SSS premium. Noblejas alleged that after an altercation with Capt. Nicolo S. Terrei, he was dismissed by Ferrez upon Capt. Terrei's instruction. Respondents claimed Noblejas became angry, hurled invectives, and threatened legal action after his demands were not met. They asserted he did not report for work the following day and filed the complaint, mistaking the refusal of his demands as termination. Procedural History: The Labor Arbiter (LA) found Noblejas to have been illegally dismissed, awarding backwages, separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, and proportionate 13th month pay. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the LA decision, finding no positive overt act of dismissal and that Noblejas was a contractual employee who severed his own employment. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the NLRC ruling, holding that Noblejas was a contractual employee and not illegally dismissed. The Petition: Noblejas filed a petition for review on certiorari, arguing that the CA erred in finding him a contractual employee, that he was illegally dismissed, and that he was not entitled to his money claims.
Issue(s)
Whether petitioner Noblejas was a contractual or regular employee. Whether petitioner Noblejas was illegally dismissed from employment. Whether petitioner Noblejas is entitled to his monetary claims.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Respondent IMAPI is ordered to pay petitioner Noblejas his proportionate 13th month pay in the amount of ₱15,625.00 and to reinstate him to his former position. No backwages are awarded under the principle of "no work, no pay."
Ratio Decidendi
On the status of employment: The Court found Noblejas to be a regular employee of IMAPI. Article 280 of the Labor Code defines two kinds of regular employees: those engaged to perform activities usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer, and those who have rendered at least one year of service. Noblejas was hired as a training instructor/assessor, a role necessary and desirable for IMAPI's business as a training center. He continued to work in this capacity beyond his initial three-month contract until March 16, 2010, demonstrating a continuing need for his services, thus establishing his status as a regular employee. On illegal dismissal: The Court ruled that there was no illegal dismissal. Fair evidentiary rule dictates that before employers are burdened to prove that they did not commit illegal dismissal, it is incumbent upon the employee to first establish by substantial evidence the fact of his or her dismissal. Noblejas failed to adduce corroborative and competent evidence to substantiate his claim of dismissal. The record lacked any indication that he was prevented from returning to work or deprived of assignments. The Court found it odd that Noblejas immediately filed an illegal dismissal case the day after the alleged incident without clarifying with Capt. Terrei what he heard from Ferrez. The NLRC's observation that Noblejas, being unhappy with the non-granting of his demands, was no longer interested in continuing his employment, and that his filing of the complaint was intended to compel the company to abide by his demands, was given credence. Respondents' refusal to grant demands does not constitute an overt act of dismissal; rather, the apparent disinterest of the complainant to continue his employment may be considered a covert act that severed his employment. On monetary claims: The Court sustained the LA in granting Noblejas proportionate 13th month pay for the period January 1, 2010, to March 15, 2010, amounting to ₱15,625.00. However, it denied backwages under the principle of "no work, no pay." Reinstatement was ordered, but without backwages due to the absence of illegal dismissal and the principle of "no work, no pay."
Main Doctrine
An employee alleging illegal dismissal must first establish the fact of dismissal by substantial evidence. The employer's refusal to grant an employee's demands does not constitute an overt act of dismissal; rather, the employee's disinterest in continuing employment, evidenced by filing a complaint and ceasing to report for work, may sever the employment relationship.