G.R. No. 166109 ; February 23, 2011
EXODUS INTERNATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION and ANTONIO P. JAVALERA, Petitioners, vs. GUILLERMO BISCOCHO, FERNANDO PEREDA, FERDINAND MARIANO, GREGORIO BELLITA and MIGUEL BOBILLO, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Exodus International Construction Corporation (Exodus), a labor contractor for painting, hired respondents as painters on different dates for various projects. On November 27, 2000, four respondents filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and non-payment of monetary benefits. Another respondent filed a similar complaint on December 1, 2000, claiming dismissal on September 12, 2000, while the others were allegedly orally dismissed on November 25, 2000. Petitioners denied the allegations, contending that respondents abandoned their work: Gregorio absented himself and applied with another contractor; Guillermo went AWOL and worked only half a day after a reprimand; and Fernando, Ferdinand, and Miguel stopped reporting after being reprimanded for eating during work hours. The Labor Arbiter found no illegal dismissal or abandonment and ordered reinstatement without backwages but awarded holiday pay, service incentive leave pay, and 13th month pay. The NLRC affirmed. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petitioners’ certiorari petition but modified the award by ordering petitioners to solidarily pay full backwages from the time wages were withheld until actual reinstatement.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ordering the reinstatement of respondents and awarding them full backwages.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition. It held that in illegal dismissal cases, the burden of proof initially rests on the employees to establish the fact of dismissal. Upon such a showing, the burden shifts to the employer to prove that the dismissal was for a just or authorized cause. The Court found that respondents sufficiently established their dismissal through their consistent allegations and complaints. Petitioners failed to discharge their burden of proving that the dismissals were legal. Their claim of abandonment was not substantiated by clear evidence showing a deliberate and unjustified refusal to resume work, which is essential to constitute abandonment. Furthermore, the employer’s failure to present relevant employment records, which were within its control, to rebut the monetary claims justified the awards for holiday pay, service incentive leave pay, and 13th month pay. The award of attorney’s fees was also proper as respondents were forced to litigate. Consequently, the Court affirmed the CA’s decision ordering reinstatement and payment of full backwages, inclusive of benefits, from the time compensation was withheld until actual reinstatement.