Basay v. Consolacion

DEL CASTILLO, J.:

Fair evidentiary rule dictates that before employers are burdened to prove that they did not commit illegal dismissal, it is incumbent upon the employee to first establish the fact of his or her dismissal. This Petition for Review on Certiorari 1 assails the Decision2 dated June 7, 2006 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 00313, which affirmed the March 22, 2004 Decision3 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), dismissing the illegal dismissal case filed by petitioners against respondents. Factual Antecedents Respondents hired petitioners Romeo Basay (Basay) in 1967 and Julian Literal (Literal) in 1984, as tractor operators, and petitioner Julian Abueva (Abueva) in 1989, as laborer, in the hacienda devoted for sugar cane plantation.

On August 29, 2001, petitioners filed a complaint4 for illegal dismissal with monetary claims against respondents. They alleged that sometime in July 2001, respondents verbally informed them to stop working. Thereafter, they were not given work assignments despite their status as regular employees.

They alleged that their termination was done in violation of their right to substantive and procedural due process. Petitioners also claimed violation of Minimum Wage Law and non-payment of overtime pay, premium pay for holiday and rest day, five days service incentive leave pay, separation pay and 13th month pay. They also prayed for damages and attorney's fees.

Respondents denied petitioners' allegations. As regards Abueva, respondents averred that he is not an employee but a mere contractor in the hacienda. According to respondents, Abueva hired other men to perform weeding jobs and even entered into contract with neighboring haciendas for similar jobs.

Respondents alleged that Abueva's name does not appear in the payroll, thus indicating that he is not an employee. As such, there can be no dismissal to speak of, much less an illegal dismissal. With regard to petitioners Literal and Basay, respondents admitted that both are regular employees, each receiving ₱130.00 per day's work as evidenced by a Master Voucher.5 However, respondents denied having illegally dismissed them and asserted that they abandoned their jobs.

Respondents alleged that Literal was facing charges of misconduct, insubordination, damaging and taking advantage of hacienda property, and unauthorized cultivation of a portion of the hacienda. Literal was ordered to explain; instead of complying, Literal did not anymore report for work. Instead, he filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.

Respondents asserted that they sent a representative to convince petitioners to return but to no avail. Respondents maintained that they have been religiously giving 13th month pay to their employees as evidenced by a voucher6 corresponding to year 2000. Ruling of the Labor Arbiter On December 19, 2001, the Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision7 exonerating respondents from the charge of illegal dismissal as petitioners were the ones who did not report for work despite respondents' call.

The Labor Arbiter, however, awarded petitioners' claim of 13th month pay and salary differentials. The dispositive portion of the Labor Arbiter's Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, all the foregoing premises being considered, judgment is hereby rendered declaring the Respondent not guilty of Illegal Dismissal but is however directed to pay the complainants their 13th Month Pay covering the years 1998 and 1999, and their Salary Differentials for 2 years at 6 months per year of service. The computation of the foregoing monetary awards are as follows: I - 13th Month Pay: (For Each Complainant) 1998 & 1999 = 2 years or 12 months @ 6 months per year of service ₱145.00/day x 26 days = P3,770.00/mo. ₱3,770.00/mo. x 12 mos. = ₱45,240.00 =