GR 175960; (February, 2008) (Digest)
G.R. No. 175960 ; February 19, 2008
PADILLA MACHINE SHOP, RODOLFO PADILLA and LEONARDO PADILLA, petitioners, vs. RUFINO A. JAVILGAS, respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Rufino Javilgas was employed by petitioner Padilla Machine Shop. He alleged that in April 2002, proprietor Rodolfo Padilla called him by telephone and told him to “stop working” without providing any reason. Consequently, Javilgas ceased reporting for work and filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. Petitioners, however, denied any dismissal. They contended that Javilgas had previously abandoned his work in 2000, was later rehired, but subsequently performed poorly, incurred absences, and eventually voluntarily left again to operate his own competing machine shop, even pirating their clients.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether Javilgas was illegally dismissed from his employment.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ ruling that Javilgas was illegally dismissed. The legal logic rests on the fundamental principle that in termination cases, the employer bears the burden of proving that the dismissal was for a just or authorized cause. Here, petitioners failed to discharge this burden. Their defense was inconsistent, shifting from an allegation of abandonment before the Labor Arbiter to a new theory of voluntary resignation on appeal before the NLRC. A change of theory on appeal is prohibited. The Court found the petitioners’ claim that Javilgas operated a rival business to be unsupported by substantial evidence, as the belatedly submitted documents before the NLRC lacked proper authentication. Furthermore, the alleged poor performance and absences were not substantiated by any written reports, warnings, or notices that would constitute due process. The telephone instruction to “stop working” constituted a dismissal, and the employer’s failure to provide a valid reason and observe procedural due process rendered the termination illegal. The minor inconsistencies in Javilgas’s pleadings regarding the exact date of dismissal were deemed inconsequential, attributable to his illiteracy and the pro forma nature of the complaint, and did not outweigh the employer’s failure to justify the termination.