G.R. No. 167751 ; March 2, 2011
Harpoon Marine Services, Inc. and Jose Lido T. Rosit, Petitioners, vs. Fernan H. Francisco, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Harpoon Marine Services, Inc., a shipbuilding and repair company with petitioner Jose Lido T. Rosit as its President and CEO, hired respondent Fernan H. Francisco as Yard Supervisor in 1992. He left in 1998 but was rehired in 1999. On June 15, 2001, respondent alleged he was unceremoniously dismissed by petitioner Rosit, who informed him the company could no longer afford his salary and promised to pay separation pay and accrued commissions. Respondent continued to report for work but was later barred from entering the premises. On June 30, 2001, petitioner Rosit offered only separation pay, which respondent refused, also declining to sign a quitclaim. Respondent, through counsel, later demanded payment of ₱70,000.00 in commissions for seven boats supervised. Petitioners denied any agreement for commissions. Respondent thus filed an illegal dismissal complaint seeking backwages, separation pay, unpaid commissions, damages, and attorney’s fees.
Petitioners presented a different version, claiming that on June 15, 2001, petitioner Rosit only warned respondent about his excessive absences and tardiness, as shown by his Time Card for June 1-15, 2001. Instead of improving, respondent continued to absent himself and sought employment with a competitor, causing damage through unfinished projects. Petitioners denied terminating respondent, asserting he voluntarily abandoned his work after going on Absence Without Official Leave (AWOL) starting June 22, 2001. They sent several memoranda about his absences by ordinary mail and filed them with the DOLE on August 13, 2001. Due to his failure to respond, a Notice of Termination dated July 30, 2001, was issued.
Respondent denied habitual absenteeism, claiming his three-day absence was because petitioner Rosit, who was hospitalized, ordered employees not to report. A co-worker, Nestor Solares, attested respondent reported for work until June 20, 2001. Respondent denied receiving the memoranda, alleging they were fabricated to justify his illegal termination on June 15, 2001. He also denied fault for defective works, as he was terminated before project completion. Regarding commissions, respondent insisted that aside from his fixed monthly salary of ₱18,200.00, he was paid a ₱10,000.00 commission per ship repaired or constructed, presenting two check vouchers as proof. Petitioners contended respondent was a regular employee with a fixed salary, and any additional monetary benefit was a form of recognition, not a commission, with the word “commission” on vouchers used only for accounting purposes.
The Labor Arbiter ruled respondent was validly dismissed due to unjustified absences and tardiness, with due process observed, but awarded him ₱70,000.00 in commissions and attorney’s fees. Both parties appealed to the NLRC. The NLRC, in its Decision dated March 31, 2003, affirmed the award of commissions but deleted attorney’s fees. Upon respondent’s motion, the NLRC, in a modified Decision dated June 30, 2003, ruled the dismissal was illegal, finding the time card showing only three absences insufficient to prove gross and habitual absenteeism. It awarded respondent backwages, separation pay, and commissions, but sustained the deletion of attorney’s fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC’s rulings. Petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the NLRC’s finding that respondent was illegally dismissed and entitled to backwages, separation pay, and unpaid commissions.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the Court of Appeals’ Decision. The Court held that petitioners failed to discharge their burden of proving a valid cause for dismissal. The time card for June 1-15, 2001, showing only three absences, did not constitute gross and habitual absenteeism warranting dismissal. The alleged memoranda and notice of termination were not proven to have been received by respondent, as they were sent by ordinary mail without proof of receipt, and the notice was dated July 30, 2001, which was inconsistent with petitioners’ claim that respondent abandoned his job on June 22, 2001. Abandonment requires a clear, deliberate, and unjustified refusal to resume employment, which was not established. Respondent’s act of filing the illegal dismissal complaint negated abandonment.
On the claim for commissions, the Court found respondent’s evidence, the check vouchers indicating “commission,” sufficient to prove the entitlement. Petitioners failed to question the authenticity of these vouchers before the Labor Arbiter and did not present evidence to rebut their genuineness. The defense that “commission” referred merely to “additional money” for accounting purposes was unconvincing. Thus, respondent was entitled to ₱70,000.00 in unpaid commissions for seven boats.
The awards of backwages and separation pay in lieu of reinstatement were proper due to the illegal dismissal. However, the award of attorney’s fees was correctly deleted for lack of evidence of bad faith. The Supreme Court emphasized that the employer bears the burden of proving a valid cause for dismissal with clear and convincing evidence, which petitioners failed to provide.