Galbinez v. Mc Gerry's Restaurant
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner George S. Galbinez, Jr. alleged he was hired by spouses Hokian and Kim Co. as a delivery boy, dishwasher, and janitor at Mc Gerry's Restaurant on January 6, 2006, with a daily rate of P100.00 for work from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Mondays to Sundays, without overtime pay, premium pay for rest days and holidays, and holiday pay. He claimed the restaurant was owned by the respondent spouses, though registered under Gerry Velasquez. In September 2006, his salary was coursed through Metro's Manpower Agency (MMA), and his work hours were adjusted. On December 30, 2007, he was allegedly barred from entering the premises and told his services were no longer wanted. Procedural History: Petitioner filed an Amended Complaint before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) for illegal dismissal and monetary claims against Mc Gerry's Restaurant, the respondent spouses, Gerry Velasquez, and Bobby Velasco. The Labor Arbiter (LA) dismissed the complaint against Mc Gerry's and the respondent spouses for lack of employer-employee relationship, finding MMA to be the employer. The NLRC reversed the LA's decision, finding petitioner to be a regular employee of the respondents and ordering them to pay various monetary benefits. The Court of Appeals (CA) partially granted the respondents' petition for certiorari, affirming the employer-employee relationship but nullifying the finding of illegal dismissal and deleting awards for separation pay and backwages, while affirming awards for underpaid wages, ECOLA, 13th-month pay, and attorney's fees. The case was remanded to the NLRC for computation. The Petition: Petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court, questioning the CA's failure to recognize illegal dismissal and its denial of separation pay, backwages, and other monetary claims.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in failing to recognize that the petitioner was illegally dismissed and whether the respondents proved abandonment. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in denying the award for separation pay, backwages, other monetary claims, and attorney's fees to the petitioner.
Ruling
The petition is PARTLY GRANTED. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED with modifications. Respondents are ORDERED to pay petitioner separation pay computed at one (1) month salary for every year of service until petitioner stopped working for respondents in 2007. Respondent Gerry Velasquez is ORDERED to pay petitioner attorney's fees equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the total monetary award. All amounts due shall earn interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from date of finality of this Decision until fully paid. The case is REMANDED to the Labor Arbiter for an immediate re-computation of the monetary benefits due the petitioner, which respondent Gerry Velasquez should pay without delay.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of illegal dismissal and abandonment: The Court held that in illegal termination cases, the employer bears the burden to prove a valid or authorized cause for termination. However, before the employer can discharge this burden, the employee must first establish by substantial evidence that they were indeed dismissed. The petitioner's allegation of being barred from entering the premises and being told his services were no longer wanted, without more, was insufficient to substantiate the claim of dismissal. Bare allegations deserve no legal credit for being self-serving. Therefore, the Court found no basis to declare the petitioner illegally dismissed. The Court reiterated that abandonment is a matter of intention and cannot be inferred from equivocal acts. Two requisites must concur: failure to report for work without valid reason, and a clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship manifested by overt acts. Mere absence is insufficient; it must be accompanied by manifest acts showing the employee's desire not to work anymore. The burden of proof to show unjustified refusal to go back to work rests on the employer, which the respondents failed to establish. The petitioner's filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal, even after several months, negates any intention to sever employment. On the award of separation pay, other monetary claims, and attorney's fees: Given that the petitioner's claim of illegal dismissal was unsubstantiated and the respondents failed to prove abandonment, the Court found that reinstatement without backwages would normally be in order. However, considering the considerable time that had passed, rendering reinstatement impracticable, an award of separation pay equivalent to one month's salary for every year of service, computed up to the time he stopped working, was deemed more in accord with equity in lieu of reinstatement without backwages. The Court clarified that as Mc Gerry's is a sole proprietorship registered under Gerry Velasquez, he becomes personally liable for the business's debts and obligations. The respondent spouses could not be held solidarily liable absent proof of bad faith. The Court clarified that while the NLRC's dispositive portion mentioned attorney's fees equivalent to the total money claims, the attached computation pegged it at ten percent (10%) of the total award. Following jurisprudence that the dispositive portion controls, the affirmed awarded attorney's fees were clarified to be equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the total award.
Main Doctrine
The employee must first establish by substantial evidence that they were dismissed before the employer can be burdened to prove a valid or authorized cause for termination. Mere absence from work is insufficient to prove abandonment; it must be accompanied by clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship manifested by overt acts. In cases where neither illegal dismissal nor abandonment is proven, and reinstatement is impracticable, separation pay in lieu of reinstatement without backwages may be awarded.