Guinto v. Salangsang
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Noel G. Guinto filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against Sto. Niño Long-Zeny Consignee, its owner Angelo Salangsang, and manager Zenaida Salangsang, claiming employment since August 1997 as a warehouseman and later a 'sizer,' and alleging termination on November 27, 2015, based on Zenaida's instruction not to report and a confirming text message. Petitioner presented a certification from Angelo, work schedules, affidavits, payslips, and a list of porters as proof. Respondents denied the employer-employee relationship, asserting petitioner was a porter at the Orani Fishport serving various fishpond owners, and presented joint affidavits of porters and applications for mayor's permits showing only two regular employees. Procedural History: The Labor Arbiter (LA) ruled in favor of the petitioner, finding him illegally dismissed and ordering payment of backwages, separation pay, service incentive leave pay, 13th month pay, and attorney's fees. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the LA, finding petitioner was a regular employee but failed to prove actual dismissal, ordering reinstatement without backwages, deleting separation pay and 13th month pay, but affirming service incentive leave pay and attorney's fees. The Court of Appeals (CA) sustained the NLRC's decision. The Petition: Petitioner sought review, arguing his status as a regular employee was final and he was illegally dismissed due to respondents' failure to specifically deny his allegations of dismissal, entitling him to full backwages and separation pay in lieu of reinstatement due to strained relations, along with service incentive leave pay, 13th month pay, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees, asserting Angelo and Zenaida should be solidarity liable. Respondents countered that the petition was outside the scope of Rule 45 and that petitioner failed to establish the fact of dismissal.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not finding grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC when it held that petitioner was not illegally dismissed; and whether the petitioner is entitled to separation pay in lieu of reinstatement. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not finding grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC when it held that petitioner was not entitled to 13th month pay, service incentive leave pay, and attorney's fees.
Ruling
The petition is partly granted. The Court set aside the CA's decision, finding that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in dismissing the complaint for illegal dismissal. The Court ruled that petitioner was illegally dismissed. Respondents Angelo Salangsang and Zenaida Salangsang are ordered to reinstate petitioner Noel G. Guinto to his former position without loss of seniority rights and to pay him his full backwages, service incentive leave pay, and attorney's fees, with legal interest.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of illegal dismissal and separation pay: The Court found that the CA erred in not finding grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC regarding the illegal dismissal. The NLRC's conclusion that the petitioner failed to prove his dismissal was not supported by substantial evidence. Under Section 11, Rule 8 of the Rules of Court, which applies suppletorily, material averments in a complaint that are not specifically denied are deemed admitted. The respondents failed to specifically deny the petitioner's allegations regarding Zenaida's verbal instruction not to report to work and the subsequent text message confirming this. Their defense was solely that no employer-employee relationship existed, which did not constitute a specific denial of the dismissal itself. Therefore, the respondents are deemed to have admitted the fact of dismissal. Since the respondents did not prove any just or valid cause for the dismissal, the petitioner was illegally dismissed. The Court denied the petitioner's prayer for separation pay in lieu of reinstatement based on strained relations because the petitioner failed to provide proof of actual strained relations. Thus, reinstatement without backwages was the appropriate remedy for the illegal dismissal, as per the NLRC's initial finding, but the Court later found entitlement to full backwages. On the issue of 13th month pay, service incentive leave pay, and attorney's fees: The Court affirmed the CA's ruling that the petitioner was not entitled to 13th month pay because the petitioner himself alleged in his complaint that he was paid on a commission basis, and Section 3(e) of the Rules and Regulations Implementing PD 851 exempts employers of those paid on a purely commission basis from paying 13th month pay. The Court found that the petitioner was entitled to service incentive leave pay, as ruled by the LA and affirmed by the NLRC, and that this ruling had attained finality. The Court also awarded attorney's fees equivalent to 10% of the total monetary awards, as petitioner was compelled to litigate to enforce his rights, consistent with Article 111 of the Labor Code and Article 2208 of the Civil Code.
Main Doctrine
In illegal dismissal cases, if the employer fails to specifically deny the employee's allegations regarding the circumstances of dismissal, the employer is deemed to have admitted the fact of dismissal and must then prove the validity of the dismissal. The failure to prove a just or valid cause for dismissal renders the dismissal illegal.