Jarabelo v. Household Goods Patrons
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Gil Sambu Jarabelo (Jarabelo) was employed as a booking salesman by Household Goods Patrons, Inc. (Household Goods) from July 2007. His duties included taking orders, collecting payments, and remitting them daily, as well as maintaining company-assigned vehicles. From May 2012 to August 2013, Jarabelo faced multiple disciplinary actions due to unaccounted amounts, low sales, late remittances, and poor performance ratings. Procedural History: Jarabelo filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against Household Goods and Susan Dulalia, alleging he was verbally told to resign on August 29, 2013, and subsequently presented with his final pay computation. The Labor Arbiter (LA) ruled in favor of Jarabelo, finding him illegally dismissed and awarding separation pay, backwages, and other monetary claims. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), however, partly granted the employer's appeal, reversing the LA's finding of dismissal and ordering only the payment of proportionate 13th month pay. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the NLRC's decision, finding that Jarabelo failed to prove his dismissal and that the employer had merely offered him the option to resign due to his performance issues. The Petition: Jarabelo filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the CA's decision. He argued that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling that he failed to prove his dismissal and in deleting the separation pay, backwages, and service incentive leave pay awarded by the LA. The core of his argument was that the CA erred in affirming the NLRC's conclusion that he was not dismissed, despite the circumstances presented.
Issue(s)
WHETHER THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT COMMISSION (NLRC) COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN RULING THAT THE PETITIONER FAILED TO PROVE THE FACT OF HIS DISMISSAL. WHETHER THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT COMMISSION (NLRC) COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN DELETING THE SEPARATION PAY, BACKWAGES, AND SERVICE INCENTIVE LEAVE PAY AWARDED BY THE LABOR ARBITER TO THE PETITIONER.
Ruling
The Petition is denied. The Decision dated September 8, 2015, and Resolution dated February 16, 2016, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 138115 are affirmed with modification. Respondent Household Goods Patrons, Inc. is directed to pay petitioner Gil Sambu Jarabelo separation pay equivalent to one month salary for every year of service, computed up to September 1, 2013, with interest at six percent (6%) per annum from finality of the Decision until full payment.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Issue of Dismissal: The Court reiterated the rule that in illegal dismissal cases, the employee must first establish the fact of dismissal by substantial evidence. Jarabelo failed to present any proof of dismissal or that he was prohibited from returning to work, relying solely on his allegations. The respondents, conversely, presented evidence that Jarabelo was not dismissed but was given the option to resign due to his poor performance and shortages, which constituted theft. The Court found that offering an employee the option to resign instead of facing termination for cause is a valid exercise of management prerogative, especially when considering prior good performance and as an act of compassion. This is consistent with jurisprudence where employers may allow employees to resign to save face after malfeasance is exposed, and such an option does not constitute dismissal. On the Deletion of Separation Pay, Backwages, and Service Incentive Leave Pay: Given that no dismissal was established, the general rule is that the employee may return to work as the employment relationship was never severed. However, the Court considered exceptions where separation pay is awarded even without dismissal. In this case, Household Goods had initially offered separation pay, and more than seven years had passed since Jarabelo last reported for work. Citing precedents like Nightowl Watchman & Security Agency, Inc. v. Lumahan, Dee Jay's Inn and Cafe v. Rañeses, and Doctor v. NII Enterprises, the Court deemed it just to award separation pay equivalent to one month's salary for every year of service, computed up to the date he stopped working, in lieu of ordering his return to work. The Court found no reason to disturb the NLRC's factual findings, as affirmed by the CA, regarding the payment of unpaid salary and service incentive leave pay, as these were supported by substantial evidence.
Main Doctrine
In illegal dismissal cases, the employee must first establish the fact of dismissal by substantial evidence. If the employee is given the option to resign instead of being dismissed for cause, and the employer does not initiate disciplinary proceedings, this does not constitute dismissal, especially when the employee fails to return to work. In cases where more than seven years have passed since the employee stopped working, and the employer had initially offered separation pay, it is deemed just to award separation pay in lieu of reinstatement.