FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 206891, March 15, 2017
ERNESTO BROWN, Petitioner, v. MARSWIN* MARKETING, INC., AND SANY** TAN, REPRESENTED BY BERNADETTE S. AZUCENA, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
This Petition for Review on Certiorari1 assails the January 18, 2013 Decision2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-GR. SP No. 124098. The CA annulled and set aside the December 19, 20113 and January 31, 20124 Resolutions of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), which affirmed the June 30, 2011 Decision5 of the Labor Arbiter (LA) declaring illegal the dismissal from work of Ernesto Brown (Brown). Likewise assailed is the April 23, 2013 CA Resolution6 denying Brown's Motion for Reconsideration.
Factual Antecedents
On June 7, 2010, Brown filed a Complaint7 for illegal dismissal, nonpayment of salary and 13th month pay as well as claim for moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees against Marswin Marketing, Inc. (Marswin) and Sany Tan (Tan), its owner and President. He prayed for reinstatement with full backwages and payment of his other monetary claims.
In his Position Paper,8 Brown alleged that on October 5, 2009, Marswin employed, him as building maintenance/ electrician with, a salary of P500.00 per day; he was assigned at Marswin's warehouse in Valenzuela, and was tasked to maintain its sanitation and make necessary electrical repairs thereon.
Brown further averred that on May 28,2010, he reported, at the Main Office of Marswin, and was told that it was already his last day of work. Allegedly, he was made to sign a document that he did not understand; and, thereafter, he was no longer admitted back to work. Thus, he Insisted that he was terminated without due process of law.
For their part, Marswin/Tan argued in their Position Paper9 and Comment10 that on October 4, 2009, Marswin, a domestic corporation engaged in wholesale trade of construction materials, employed Brown as electrician; during his eight-month stay, Marswin received negative reports anent Brown's work ethics, competence, and efficiency. On May 28, 2010, they summoned him at its Main Office to purportedly discuss the complaints of the Warehouse Manager and the Warehouse Supervisor; during the meeting, they informed .Brown of the following charges against him:
Marswin/Tan stated that during the meeting, Brown excused himself purportedly to get in touch with his wife; however, he never returned and no longer reported for work.
- x x x [Disobedience to instructions given by the Electrical Engineer and Contractor during the time [of] the renovation of the staff room at the Valenzuela warehouse; making himself scarce and worse not responding to calls for errands regarding electrical connections at the warehouse;
- Exposing the office to possible criminal liability for installing a jumper at the Valenzuela warehouse without being told to [make such installation];
- Not performing his job well as electrician, thus, resulting to additional expenses to the company, when it could have been avoided had he been following x x x orders given to him;
- Unreasonable refusal to perform his assigned tasks despite being repeatedly ordered to do so x x x.11
x x xRuling of the Labor Arbiter
- x x x [Si] Ernesto Brown ay aking pinatawag sa main office noong Mayo 28, 2010 para kausapin dahil sa mga nasabing reklamo sa kanyang pagtatrabaho; noong aking binanggit sa kanya [ang] mga nasabing reklamo ay wala man lang siyang kaimik imik; sinabi ko sa kanya na kung ipagpapatuloy [nya] ang maling pagtrabaho at hindi pagsunod sa mga pinagagawa sa kanya ay walang magagawa ang opisina kundi tanggalin na siya; nanatili siyang walang imik at nagsabi siya na tatawag siya sa kanyang asawa at umalis sya; hindi na siya bumalik noon at hindi na pumasok magmula noon at nakatanggap na nga lang kami ng reklamo [mula] sa tanggapa[n] ng Labor Arbiter. x x x.
- Hindi totoo ang kanyang reklamo na siya ay dinismis; may legal na kadahilanan na para siya ay dismisin pero hindi pa siya dinismis noong Mayo 28, 2010; siya mismo ang hindi na bumalik sa tanggapan x x x13
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered declaring complainant Ernesto Brown to have been illegally dismissed from work.The LA held that Brown was a regular employee of Marswin because Marswin/Tan confirmed hiring him on October 4, 2009; they paid him salary; they had the power to control bis conduct, especially on how he should do his work; and, they had the power to dismiss him.
Respondents are directed to reinstate complainant Brown to his former position without loss of seniority rights and to notify this Office of their compliance thereto within ten (10) days from receipt of this Decision. Further respondent Marswin Marketing, Inc. is hereby directed to pay complainant Brown's backwages computed from the time he was illegally dismissed from work until his actual reinstatement pursuant to Article 279 of the Labor Code and to pay his 13th month pay computed as follows:All other claims are dismissed for lack of merit.
a) backwages - P188,335,98b) 13th month pay - P 5,308.33
SO ORDERED.14
WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED WHEN IT REVERSED THE NLRC3S RESOLUTIONS AFFIRMING THE LABOR ARBITER'S DECISION THAT THE PETITIONER ERNESTO BROWN WAS ILLEGALLY DISMISSED BY THE PRIVATE RESPONDENTS.16Brown contends that Marswin failed to discharge its burden to prove that he committed abandonment. He argues that the fact that he challenges his dismissal disproves that he abandoned his employment. He also stresses that the reliance of the CA on Azucena's affidavit is unwarranted as no actual complaints as regards his supposed infractions were adduced in evidence. He posits that the bare allegations of Azucena are hearsay, and are not proof that he committed any infraction.
Given all these, there is clearly no showing that Brown committed abandonment instead, evidence proved that he was illegally dismissed from work.
- Na tumanggap ako ng mga reklamo sa aming Warehouse Manager at Warehouse Supervisor ng aming bodega sa Valenzuela na [si] Ernesto Brown ay madalas na maraming dahilan kapag ito ay pinapapunta sa Valenzuela para maggawa; x x x
- Na noong buwan ng Enero hanggang Marso ng taong ito (2010) ay ginawa ang opisina ng staff sa bodega sa Valenzuela at bilang elek[t]risyan ay inatasan siyang gawin ang 'electrical wireline' doon; Na nakarating [sa amin] ang sumbong nina Electrical Engineer at Contraktor x x x na si Ernesto Brown ay hindi sumusunod sa mga pinauutos nila at madalas na makagalitan dahil doon;
- Na noong nawalan ng electric power ang bodega sa Valenzuela dahil sa electric shortage ay pinatingnan ito sa kanya, ngunit sa halip na ayusin ng tarna ang problems, sa electrical wireline ay nilagyan niya ito ng 'jumper' at ito ay nakita ng taga Meralco x x x;
- Nito lang buwan ng Abril 2010 ay gumawa na naman ng kapalpakan si Ernesto Brown dito naman sa main office sa Binondo; iyong electronic lock ng front door ng office sa third floor x x x ay nagmalfunction at nasira; ang nasabing electronic lock ay covered pa ng warranty x x x; [n]ang suriin ang nasabing electronic lock ay nalaman nami[n] na may nakialam sa loob ng lock kung kaya hindi ito nakober ng warranty at nagbayad ang kumpanya ng halagang P6,000.0[0] a pagsasaayos nito; x x x
- x x x [Nang] ipatawag nami[n] ang security guard ay doon lang namin nalaman na pinakialaman pala ni Ernesto Brown ang loob ng nasabing electronic lock samantalang hindi naman ito pinagagawa sa kanya;
- Na noong ipasuri ang electrical wireline sa bodega ng Valenzuela, nakita ang sala-salabat o 'spaghetti type' na wiring nito; ilan[g] beses iniutos sa kanya na ayusin at iwasto [ang] nasabing wiring pero hindi nya ito ginagawa x x x;
- Dahil dito si Ernesto Brown ay aldng pinatawag sa main office noong Mayo 28, 2010 para kausapin dahil sa mga nasabing reklamo sa kanyang pagtatrabaho x x x[.]26
Endnotes:
* Mars Win in some parts of the records.
** Spelled in some parts of the records as Sonny.
1Rollo, pp. 10-23.
2 CA rollo, pp. 155-169; penned by Associate Justice Romeo F. Barza and concurred in by Associate Justices Noel G. Tijam (now a Member of this Court) and Ramon A. Cruz.
3 Id. at 72-79; penned by Presiding Commissioner Raul T. Aquino and concurred in by Commissioners Teresita D. Castillon-Lora and Napoleon M. Menese.
4 Id. at 90-91.
5 Id. at 50-58; penned by Labor Arbiter Jenneth B. Napiza.
6 Id. at 181-182.
7 Id. at 22.
8 Id. at 23-30.
9 Id. at 31-33.
10 Id. at 47-49.
11 Id. at 32.
12 Id. at 34-35.
13 Id. at 35.
14 Id. at 57-58,
15 Id. at 60-65.
16Rollo, p. 15.
17 See Manarpiis v. Texan Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 197011, January 28, 2015, 748 SCRA 511, 521-522.
18 See DUP Sound Phils, v. Court of Appeals, 676 Phil. 472, 479 (2011).
19People's Security, Inc. v. Flores, G.R. No. 211312, December 5, 2016.
20Tan Brothers Corporation of Basilan City v. Escudero, 713 Phil. 392, 400-402 (2013).
21 See Litex Glass and Aluminum Supply v. Sanchez, G.R. No. 198465, April 22, 2015, 757 SCRA 206, 217.
22 See Harpoon Marine Services, Inc. v. Francisco, 659 Phil. 453, 467 (2011).
23Julie's Bakeshop v. Arnaiz, 682 Phil. 95, 111 (2012).
24 See Tan Brothers Corporation of Basilan City v. Escudero, supra note 20 at 401.
25 See DUP Sound Phils, v. Court of Appeals, supra note 18 at 480.
26 CA rollo, pp. 34-35.
27 Article 279. Security of Tenure. - In cases of regular employment, the employer shall not terminate the services of an employee except for a just cause or when authorized by this Title. An employee who is unjustly dismissed from work shall be entitle to reinstatement without toss of seniority rights and other privileges and to his full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and to his other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from the time his compensation was withheld from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement. (now Article 294 of the Labor Code of the Philippines, Amended & Renumbered, July 21, 2015)
28Balais, Jr. v. Se'Lon, G.R. No. 196557, June 15, 2016.