gr_194686_2015

PERALTA, 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 by substantial evidence the fact of his or her dismissal.1 For resolution of this Court is a petition for review on certiorari, dated December 23, 2010 of petitioner Tri-C General Services, seeking thereversal of the Decision2 dated June 1 7, 2010 and Resolution3 datedDecember 9, 2010 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 111644 reversing the Decision4 and Resolution5 dated June 30, 2009 and September 22, 2009, respectively, of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) Second Division, Quezon City in LAC No. 12-003297-07 which affirmed the Decision6 dated July 26, 2007 of the Labor Arbiter (LA) in NLRC Case No. RAB-IV-12-20177-04-C. The assailed Decision and Resolution of the CA declared that respondents Nolasco B. Matuto, Romeo E. Magno and Elvira B. Laviña were illegally dismissed, and ordered their reinstatement and payment of full backwages.

The facts are as follows: Petitioner Tri-C General Services, Inc. is a manpower agency engaged in the business of supplying services to all PLDT Business Offices in Laguna.7 Respondents Nolasco Matuto (Matuto), Romeo Magno (Magno) and Elvira Laviña (Laviña) were hired by petitioner as janitors/janitress assigned at the PLDT Business Office in Calamba City. Magno was hired on August 1, 1993 while Matuto was hired on June 5, 1995 and Laviña on February 4, 1996.8 On November 3, 2004, Matuto and Laviña were barred from their work place in PLDT-Calamba, while Magno was denied entry on November 26, 2004.9 Thus, respondents filed an illegal dismissal case against petitioner on December 15, 2004.10 Carmela Quiogue, the owner of Tri-C General Services, Inc., was impleaded in the complaint.11 For their part, respondents averred that sometime in January 1997, they spearheaded the first complaint of several janitors against petitioner for underpayment of wages and violation of labor standards before the Department of Labor and Employment.

The LA decided on September 1, 2003 in their favor and ordered the petitioner to pay their underpaid salaries. However, petitioner did not pay the respondents with the mandated minimum wage but merely increased their salaries by 5.00 every year. They alleged that since then, they earned the ire of petitioner and experienced harassment and intimidation.12 Respondents further alleged that assuming that petitioner had valid ground to terminate them, their termination was still deemed illegal since petitioner failed to furnish them with the two notices required by law.

They only received a notice informing them that their services had already been terminated effective on the same date of the notice.13 In its defense, petitioner denied dismissing respondents. Sometime in October 2004, PLDT-Laguna informed petitioner that it would implement cost-cutting measures and that it would discontinue, after careful assessment, the services of respondents.14 Petitioner further claimed that it had no other recourse but to temporarily put the respondents on "floating status" upon termination of client's contract since their work was entirely dependent on the need for janitorial services of its clients.

It alleged that the complaint for illegal dismissal was premature since the six months legal period for placing an employee on a "floating status" has not yet lapsed.15 It insisted that it was a legitimate exercise of its management prerogative. In its reply to respondents' position paper, petitioner insisted that respondents abandoned their posts.

It averred that its Personnel Department sent a series of letters to the respondents from October 2004 to November 2004.16 On October 14, 2004, Matuto and Laviña received similar letters, reading as follows: From: PMI Personnel Department Subject: Requested to Report at the Office You are hereby requested to report on Saturday, October 16, 2004, 8:00 AM at our office #45 Zorra St., San Francisco Del Monte, Quezon City. In regards to the on going re-shuffling or Notice of transfer. Thank you.17 Subsequent letters dated October 19, 25 and November 11, 2004 pertain to the same request for the respondents to report at petitioner's main office.

Petitioner warned respondents Matuto and Laviña in a letter18 dated November 11, 2004 that failure to report at their office will mean that they were no longer interested in their work. When such request went unheeded, petitioner sent the final letter, dated November 16, 2004, reading as follows: From: Personnel Department Subject: Failure to Report at the Office You were given ample time to report at the office since October 16, 2004 at our office at #45 Zorra St., San Francisco Del Monte, Quezon City, but you did not appear at all. Therefore, we took action that you are hereby terminating your services with this company voluntarily.

Due to this, we were left with no recourse but to delete you from our active roster of employees effective today November 16, 2004. We wish you the best of luck. Thank you.19 Respondent Magno received similar letters on November 11 and 16, 2004 directing him to report to petitioner's main office.

On November 22, 2004, he received a letter20 informing him that his failure to appear at the office left petitioner with no recourse but to delete him from its active roster of employees. The LA ruled in favor of the petitioner, the dispositive portion of the decision reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the complaint for illegal dismissal is DISMISSED for lack of merit except that TRI-C GENERAL SERVICES, INC. is ordered to pay complainants their separation pay as follows: Nolasco Matuto - 42,432.00 Romeo Magno - 45,968.00 Elvira Laviña - 38,896.00