GR 182070; (February, 2011) (Digest)
G.R. No. 182070 ; February 16, 2011
E.G. & I. CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION and EDSEL GALEOS, Petitioners, vs. ANANIAS P. SATO, NILO BERDIN, ROMEO M. LACIDA, JR., and HEIRS OF ANECITO S. PARANTAR, SR., namely: YVONNE, KIMBERLY MAE, MARYKRIS, ANECITO, JR., and JOHN BRYAN, all surnamed PARANTAR, Respondents.
FACTS
Respondents Ananias P. Sato, Nilo Berdin, Anecito S. Parantar, Sr., and Romeo M. Lacida, Jr. were employees of petitioner E.G. & I. Construction Corporation. Sato, a grader operator for over 13 years, was demoted to manual labor after inquiring about the non-remittance of his SSS contributions and was later told the company could no longer afford his wages. Berdin, Parantar, and Lacida, who worked as steelmen/laborers, were terminated on July 24, 2004, after refusing to sign documents they did not understand and were subsequently barred from entering the work premises. All respondents filed complaints for illegal dismissal and monetary claims (wage differentials, holiday pay, 13th month pay, service incentive leave pay). Petitioners claimed respondents abandoned their work and that Sato was dismissed for cause (substandard work, absences, tardiness, an illicit affair). The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of respondents, finding illegal dismissal and awarding monetary claims due to petitioners’ failure to present proof of payment. The NLRC reversed, dismissing the illegal dismissal claim (noting the absence of a written notice and respondents’ prayer for separation pay) and withdrawing most monetary awards after petitioners belatedly submitted payrolls on appeal. The Court of Appeals reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s decision.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reinstating the Labor Arbiter’s decision declaring that respondents were illegally dismissed and entitled to their monetary claims.
RULING
The Supreme Court sustained the ruling of the Court of Appeals.
1. On Illegal Dismissal: Petitioners failed to prove that the dismissals were for a just or authorized cause. The burden of proof rests on the employer. The claim of abandonment was not substantiated. For abandonment to exist, there must be (a) failure to report without justifiable reason, and (b) a clear intention to sever employment shown by overt acts. Here, respondents were refused entry to the worksite, which is inconsistent with abandonment. A written notice of dismissal is not a prerequisite for a finding of illegal dismissal.
2. On Monetary Claims: The belated submission of payrolls and other documents by petitioners before the NLRC, without explanation for their non-presentation before the Labor Arbiter, rightly led the CA to affirm the Labor Arbiter’s award. The Labor Arbiter’s grant of monetary claims was proper due to petitioners’ initial failure to effectively controvert them with proof of payment.
Thus, respondents were illegally dismissed and entitled to separation pay (in lieu of reinstatement), wage differentials, 13th month pay, holiday pay, and service incentive leave pay as awarded by the Labor Arbiter.