G.R. No. 192998 , April 2, 2014
BERNARD A. TENAZAS, JAIME M. FRANCISCO and ISIDRO G. ENDRACA, Petitioners, vs. R. VILLEGAS TAXI TRANSPORT and ROMUALDO VILLEGAS, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Bernard Tenazas, Jaime Francisco, and Isidro Endraca filed consolidated complaints for illegal dismissal against respondents R. Villegas Taxi Transport and Romualdo Villegas. Tenazas alleged he was fired on July 3, 2007, after a minor vehicular accident. Francisco claimed he was dismissed on June 4, 2007, due to unfounded suspicion of organizing a union. Endraca asserted he was terminated on March 6, 2006, after failing to meet the daily boundary due to repair costs. Respondents admitted Tenazas and Endraca were employees but denied Francisco was ever employed. They contended Tenazas was not dismissed but advised to wait for his unit’s repair, while Endraca had abandoned his job as a spare driver since July 2003. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaints, finding no proof of overt acts of dismissal. The NLRC reversed the decision, admitting additional evidence (joint affidavit, co-driver’s affidavit, pictures in company shirts, and SSS records) and ruling petitioners were illegally dismissed. The Court of Appeals affirmed with modification, holding that Tenazas and Endraca were illegally dismissed and ordering reinstatement, but dismissing Francisco’s claim for lack of employer-employee relationship.

ISSUE

Whether the petitioners were illegally dismissed by the respondents.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision with modifications.
1. Regarding Jaime Francisco: The Court upheld the CA’s finding that no employer-employee relationship existed. Francisco failed to substantiate his claim with concrete evidence such as payroll records, SSS contributions, or tax documents. His inclusion in the joint affidavit and pictures in company attire were insufficient to prove employment.
2. Regarding Bernard Tenazas and Isidro Endraca: The Court found they were illegally dismissed. For Tenazas, respondents’ claim that he abandoned his job was belied by his immediate filing of the illegal dismissal complaint. For Endraca, the allegation of abandonment was contradicted by his filing of the complaint soon after the alleged dismissal. The Court ruled that abandonment requires a clear intent to sever the employment relationship, which was absent here.
3. Remedies Awarded: The Court ordered the reinstatement of Tenazas and Endraca without loss of seniority rights and payment of full backwages from the time of dismissal until actual reinstatement. Separation pay was deleted as reinstatement was feasible. Attorney’s fees equivalent to 10% of the total monetary awards were also granted.
The Court emphasized that in dismissal cases, the burden of proof rests on the employer to show just or authorized cause for termination. Respondents failed to discharge this burden, making the dismissals illegal.