G.R. No. 194686 , September 23, 2015
TRI-C GENERAL SERVICES, Petitioner, vs. NOLASCO B. MATUTO, ROMEO E. MAGNO and ELVIRA B. LAVIÑA, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Tri-C General Services, Inc. is a manpower agency supplying services to PLDT Business Offices in Laguna. Respondents Nolasco Matuto (hired June 5, 1995), Romeo Magno (hired August 1, 1993), and Elvira Laviña (hired February 4, 1996) were hired as janitors/janitress assigned at the PLDT Business Office in Calamba City. On November 3, 2004, Matuto and Laviña were barred from their workplace; Magno was denied entry on November 26, 2004. Respondents filed an illegal dismissal case on December 15, 2004.
Respondents alleged they spearheaded a 1997 complaint against petitioner for underpayment of wages, leading to a Labor Arbiter decision in their favor on September 1, 2003. They claimed that since then, they experienced harassment. They also asserted that assuming a valid ground for termination existed, the dismissal was still illegal due to petitioner’s failure to furnish the two required notices, receiving only a notice of termination effective on the same date.
Petitioner denied dismissal, claiming that in October 2004, PLDT-Laguna informed it of cost-cutting measures and the discontinuance of respondents’ services. Petitioner placed respondents on “floating status” as their work depended on client needs, arguing the complaint was premature since the six-month legal period for floating status had not lapsed. In its reply, petitioner insisted respondents abandoned their posts, citing a series of letters from October to November 2004 requesting them to report to the main office for reshuffling/transfer. Final letters dated November 16, 2004 (for Matuto and Laviña) and November 22, 2004 (for Magno) stated that failure to report meant voluntary termination and they were deleted from the active roster.
The Labor Arbiter dismissed the illegal dismissal complaint, considering respondents on floating status where the six-month period had not lapsed, but ordered payment of separation pay. The NLRC affirmed the dismissal but deleted the separation pay award. The Court of Appeals reversed, declaring respondents illegally dismissed, ordering reinstatement with full backwages and attorney’s fees.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the NLRC and declaring that respondents were illegally dismissed.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversing the Court of Appeals and reinstating the NLRC Decision. The Court held that respondents failed to substantiate their claim of illegal dismissal. The burden of proof rests upon the employee to establish by substantial evidence the fact of dismissal. Here, respondents merely alleged they were barred from entering the workplace without presenting corroborative evidence. In contrast, petitioner presented letters showing it had placed respondents on floating status due to the client’s discontinuance of services and that respondents failed to report to the main office as instructed. The Court found petitioner’s act of placing respondents on floating status a legitimate exercise of management prerogative, justified by the client’s withdrawal of the need for their services. The filing of the complaint on December 15, 2004, was premature as the six-month period for floating status had not yet expired. Since respondents did not prove dismissal, the claim for illegal dismissal must fail.