Santos v. King Chef
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Efren Santos, Jr. and Jeramil Salmasan were employed as cooks by King Chef, a Chinese restaurant owned by Marites Ang and managed by Joey Delos Santos. Santos was employed on February 19, 2011, and Salmasan on July 29, 2010. The dispute arose when Santos worked only a half-day on December 25, 2011, without prior authorization, and Salmasan did not report for work at all on the same day. The petitioners claimed they were subsequently dismissed from their employment. Procedural History: The petitioners filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, underpayment of salaries, non-payment of salaries and thirteenth month pay, damages, and attorney's fees. The Labor Arbiter initially ruled in favor of the petitioners, finding them to have been illegally dismissed and ordering the respondents to pay backwages, separation pay, wage differentials, and attorney's fees. However, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) modified this decision, finding that the petitioners failed to prove they were dismissed and instead were absent without leave (AWOL). The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC's ruling, holding that the petitioners did not establish by substantial evidence that they were dismissed. The appellate court denied their subsequent motion for reconsideration. The Petition: This Petition for Review on Certiorari assails the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals. The petitioners argue that the appellate court erred in sustaining the NLRC's finding that they were not dismissed. They reiterate their claim that upon attempting to return to work after their absence on December 25, 2011, they were barred from the premises and informed of their termination without compliance with legal requirements. The respondents, in their comment, maintain that the petitioners were never dismissed and had, in fact, abandoned their work. The Supreme Court is asked to determine whether the petitioners were illegally dismissed.
Issue(s)
Whether or not petitioners were illegally dismissed. Whether or not petitioners abandoned their work.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. It held that petitioners failed to establish by substantial evidence that they were dismissed from employment. The Court found that the evidence pointed to petitioners being on AWOL after December 25, 2011, and that they filed their complaint for illegal dismissal before the employer could impose disciplinary action. The Court also found no abandonment of work, but given the absence of illegal dismissal and abandonment, each party was to bear their own loss, thus affirming the deletion of separation pay.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of illegal dismissal: The Court reiterated the well-settled principle that before an employer must bear the burden of proving that a dismissal was legal, the employees must first establish by substantial evidence that they were indeed dismissed. In this case, the petitioners failed to present any substantial evidence, such as a termination notice or any correspondence regarding their termination, to prove their claim of dismissal. Their allegations were considered bare assertions. Conversely, the evidence on record, including the sign-up sheet for tips and the petitioners' own admission of being on AWOL during the Christmas season, pointed to the fact that petitioners failed to report for work without justification. The Court noted that the petitioners' claim of being verbally terminated by their chief cook was unsubstantiated and contradicted by their actions of returning to claim tips and their subsequent prolonged absence. Therefore, without substantial evidence that petitioners were indeed dismissed, it was futile to determine the legality or illegality of their supposed dismissal, leading the Court to uphold the NLRC's ruling, as affirmed by the CA, that there was no illegal dismissal. On the issue of abandonment of work: While the Court found no illegal dismissal, it also clarified that there was no abandonment of work on the part of the petitioners. The Court explained that abandonment requires not only the failure to report for work for an unjustifiable reason but also overt acts showing a clear intention to sever ties with the employer. The Court found no showing that petitioners' absences were unjustifiable or that they clearly intended to terminate their employment. The act of filing the complaint for illegal dismissal, even if it preempted disciplinary action, was not considered abandonment in itself, as the operative act of severing employment was not demonstrated. However, in situations where there is neither illegal dismissal nor abandonment, and reinstatement is not prayed for, the remedy is that each party must bear their own loss, which justified the deletion of the award for separation pay.
Main Doctrine
Before an employer must bear the burden of proving that a dismissal was legal, the employees must first establish by substantial evidence that they were indeed dismissed. If there is no dismissal, then there can be no question as to the legality or illegality thereof.