Haus v. Geniston

KAPUNAN, J.:

This special civil action for certiorari stems from a complaint for illegal dismissal filed by Renato Geniston, private respondent herein, against the Ultra Villa Food Haus restaurant and/or its alleged owner Rosie Tio. Private respondent alleged that he was employed as a "do it all guy." acting as waiter, driver, and maintenance man, in said restaurant.

His employment therein spanned from March 1, 1989 until he was dismissed on May 13, 1992. For his services, private respondent was paid P60.00 in 1989, P70.00 in 1990, P80.00 in 1991 and P90.00 when he was dismissed in 1992. During the elections of May 11, 1992, private respondent acted as a Poll Watcher for the National Union of Christian Democrats.

The counting of votes lasted until 3:00 p.m. the next day, May 12. Private respondent did not report for work on both days on account of his poll-watching.

Upon arriving home on May 12, private respondent discovered that Tio had phoned his mother that morning. Tio allegedly gave his mother "an inscrutable verbal lashing," and informed the latter that private respondent was dismissed from work.

On May 13, 1992, private respondent went to Tio's residence to plead his case only to be subjected to a "brow beating" by Tio who even attempted to force him to sign a resignation letter. Private respondent prayed that the Labor Arbiter order petitioner Tio to pay him overtime pay, premium pay, holiday pay, service incentive leave pay, salary differential and 13th month pay.

He likewise prayed for reinstatement plus backwages or, in the alternative, separation pay, as well as moral damages, exemplary damages and attorney's fees. Petitioner Rosie Tio, on the other hand, maintained that private respondent was her personal driver, not an employee of the Ultra Villa Food Haus. As petitioner's personal driver, private respondent was required to report for work at 7:00 a.m.

to drive petitioner to Mandaue City where petitioner worked as the Manager of the CFC Corporation. Accordingly, private respondent was paid P65.00 a day which was gradually increased to P70.00 then to P90.00. Private respondent was likewise given free meals as well as 13th month pay at the end of the year.

Petitioner denied dismissing private respondent whom she claimed abandoned his job. Though well aware that May 12, 1992 was a holiday, petitioner called up private respondent that day to ask him to report for work as she had some important matters to attend to. Private respondent's wife, however, coldly told petitioner that private respondent was helping in the counting of ballots.

Petitioner was thus forced to hire another driver to replace private respondent. Private respondent came back a week after but only to collect his salary. The Labor Arbiter found that private respondent was indeed petitioner's personal driver.

Private respondent's claim that he was an employee of the Ultra Villa Food Haus was deemed by the Labor Arbiter to be a mere afterthought, considering that: . . .

. In his verified complaint, complainant states that the nature of his work position was a driver. If it [were] true that he was made to perform these functions as a waiter, it would be incongruous with the position of a driver.

The nature of the position of a waiter is one that requires him to be at the place of work at all times while that of a driver, complainant had to be away from the restaurant at all times. At any rate, an admission is made that he was only a personal driver of the individual respondent.1 The "admission" referred to above is contained in the mandatory conference order issued by the Labor Arbiter on January 10, 1994, to wit: Also on this date, the following matters were threshed out: That complainant started his employment with the individual respondent as the latter's personal driver on March 1, 1989 and the last day of his service was on May 13, 1992;2 The Labor Arbiter concluded that private respondent, being a personal driver, was not entitled to overtime pay, premium pay, service incentive leave pay and 13th month pay.

Private respondent's claim for salary differential was likewise denied since he "received a daily salary of P90.00 which is more than that set by law."3 Neither was private respondent awarded separation pay. While the hiring of a substitute driver amounted to a constructive dismissal, the Labor Arbiter ruled that the same was justified in view of petitioner's "dire need" for the services of a driver.

The Labor Arbiter, however, noted that petitioner failed to comply with procedural due process in dismissing private respondent and thus ordered the former to indemnify the latter the amount of P1,000.00. The dispositive portion of the Labor Arbiter's decision states:

WHEREFORE in the light of the foregoing premises, judgment is rendered finding complainant's dismissal for a valid cause. Complaint is hereby ordered dismissed. However, respondent is directed to indemnify complainant the amount of P1,000.00 for failure to observe the due process requirement before dismissing the complainant. SO ORDERED.4 Both parties appealed the decision of the Labor Arbiter to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). Petitioner questioned the Labor Arbiter's decision insofar as it required her to pay private respondent the amount of P1.000.00. Petitioner maintained that private respondent abandoned his job, and was not constructively dismissed as found by the Labor Arbiter. Petitioner concluded that she could not be held liable for failing to observe procedural due process in dismissing private respondent, there being no dismissal to speak of. On the other hand, private respondent denied admitting that he was employed as petitioner's personal driver. He alleged that what was admitted during the mandatory conference was that he was made to drive for the manager and his wife (petitioner) on top of his other duties which were necessary and desirable to petitioner's business. Private respondent likewise maintained his claim that he was unjustly dismissed, contending that his absence on May 11 and 12, 1992 did not warrant dismissal since those days were official holidays. The NLRC found private respondent's arguments meritorious, and ordered petitioner to reinstate private respondent and to pay him the sum of P45,311.55 in backwages, overtime pay, premium pay for holiday and rest days, 13th month pay, and service incentive pay. Thus: WHEREFORE, the respondents are hereby ordered to reinstate the complainant with backwages fixed for 6 months as he delayed in filing this case. The respondents are likewise ordered to pay the complainant his overtime pay, holiday pay, premium pay for holiday and rest day, 13th month pay, and service incentive leave covering the period from October 28, 1990 to May 10, 1992. Complainant's backwages up to the time of this Decision and his other monetary claims as computed by Nazarina C. Cabahug, Fiscal Examiner II of the Commission are the following: x x x x x x x x x SUMMARY 1) Backwages P 14,130.00 2) Overtime Pay P 22,060.00 3) Holiday Pay; Premium pay for Holiday P 1,554.00 4) Premium Pay for Rest Day P 1,683.00 5) 13th Month Pay P 5,484.55 6) Service Incentive Leave P 400.00 TOTAL