Tatel v. JLFP Investigation and Security Agency, Inc.
REVERSALFacts
The Antecedents: JLFP Investigation and Security Agency, Inc. (JLFP) hired Vicente C. Tatel (Tatel) as a security guard on March 14, 1998. Tatel alleged he worked twelve (12) hours daily, seven (7) days a week, for ₱12,400.00 monthly. On October 14, 2009, Tatel filed a complaint for underpayment of salaries and benefits. On October 24, 2009, he was placed on "floating status." After six (6) months without assignment, he filed another complaint for illegal dismissal on May 4, 2010. JLFP denied dismissal, claiming Tatel committed infractions and was reassigned multiple times. JLFP issued a Memorandum dated November 26, 2009, directing Tatel to report for work, but he allegedly failed to appear, leading JLFP to deem his work abandoned. Tatel admitted receiving the memorandum but claimed he was told to "wait for possible posting" and was never assigned. He argued it was illogical to abandon his job after eleven (11) years. Procedural History: The Labor Arbiter (LA) dismissed Tatel's illegal dismissal complaint, citing inconsistent statements regarding his employment dates and salary. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the LA, finding illegal dismissal and ordering reinstatement or separation pay, backwages, underpaid wages, and refund of cash bond. The NLRC ruled that abandonment was not proven and that Tatel's removal from his post on August 24, 2009, constituted actual dismissal without just cause or due process. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the NLRC, reinstating the LA's decision, finding grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC and agreeing with the LA that Tatel's inconsistent statements cast doubt on his claim. The CA noted Tatel's subsequent reassignments and his failure to report for work after the November 26, 2009 Memorandum, indicating abandonment. The Supreme Court, in a Decision dated February 25, 2015, initially found Tatel to have been constructively dismissed and ordered payment of awards. The respondents filed a motion for reconsideration. The Petition: The respondents filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing Tatel was not constructively dismissed and had abandoned his work. Tatel, in his comment, asserted the Court's decision was in accordance with law and jurisprudence.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court should reconsider its February 25, 2015 Decision finding Tatel to have been constructively dismissed; and whether Tatel was constructively dismissed. Whether Tatel abandoned his work.
Ruling
The Court granted the motion for reconsideration in part, setting aside its February 25, 2015 Decision. It ruled that Tatel was neither constructively dismissed nor did he abandon his work. Consequently, his complaint was dismissed for lack of merit. Tatel was ordered to return to work, and the respondents were ordered to accept him.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of constructive dismissal: The Court found that Tatel was not constructively dismissed. While he was placed on "floating status" after his last assignment ended on October 23, 2009, the employer, JLFP, recalled him to work through a Memorandum dated November 26, 2009, which was received by Tatel on December 11, 2009. This recall occurred before the six-month period for "floating status" expired. The Memorandum directed Tatel to report for posting to Lotus Realty, Inc. The Court noted that Tatel acknowledged receiving the memorandum and claimed he reported to the office but was told to wait for a posting. However, the Court found a dearth of evidence to support his claim of compliance and compliance with the return-to-work order. Instead, the Court found that Tatel ignored the memorandum and filed the constructive dismissal case after the six-month period lapsed. The Court reiterated that the employer has the burden of proving that an employee was not dismissed, and in this case, JLFP discharged this burden by showing they recalled Tatel to work. The burden then shifted to Tatel to prove dismissal, which he failed to do with mere allegations. The Court concluded that there was no overt or positive act by the respondents to dismiss Tatel, and their offer of another posting demonstrated good faith, especially since it was made during the pendency of Tatel's underpayment case. On the issue of abandonment of work: The Court maintained its position that Tatel did not abandon his work. To constitute abandonment, two elements must be present: failure to report for work without a valid reason, and a clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship manifested by overt acts. The burden of proof rests on the employer. The Court found that respondents failed to discharge this burden. The filing of an illegal dismissal complaint by Tatel is considered proof of his desire to return to work, negating any suggestion of abandonment. The Court agreed with the NLRC that there is no rational explanation for an employee with over ten years of service to abandon his work and forego benefits. Therefore, while Tatel was not constructively dismissed, he also did not abandon his work.
Main Doctrine
A security guard placed on "floating status" for more than six (6) months is not automatically considered constructively dismissed if the employer recalls the guard to work within the six-month period, and the failure to assume a new post is attributable to the employee's own actions or inaction.