G.R. No. 190724 March 12, 2014
DIAMOND TAXI and/or BRYAN ONG, Petitioners, vs. FELIPE LLAMAS, JR., Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Felipe Llamas, Jr. worked as a taxi driver for petitioner Diamond Taxi, owned by petitioner Bryan Ong. On July 18, 2005, Llamas filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. Petitioners denied dismissal, claiming Llamas had been absent without official leave beginning July 14, 2005, and had committed several traffic violations and acts of insubordination. Llamas failed to seasonably file his position paper. The Labor Arbiter (LA) dismissed the complaint on November 29, 2005, holding Llamas was not dismissed but had left his job. Llamas received the LA decision on January 5, 2006, and filed his position paper on December 20, 2005, alleging he was forced to secure new counsel. In his position paper, Llamas claimed that on July 13, 2005, he had a misunderstanding with the operations manager, and when he reported for work on July 14, Bryan Ong refused to give him his taxi key unless he signed a prepared resignation letter, which he refused. He reported again on July 15 and 16 but was met with the same precondition, leading him to file the complaint. On January 16, 2006, Llamas filed a motion for reconsideration with the LA, which was treated as an appeal to the NLRC. The NLRC dismissed the appeal on May 30, 2006, for non-perfection due to Llamas’ failure to attach the required certification of non-forum shopping. Llamas moved for reconsideration, attaching the certification, but the NLRC denied it. Llamas then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA).

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly reversed the NLRC’s dismissal of Llamas’ appeal on technical grounds and properly ruled on the substantive issue of constructive dismissal.

RULING

Yes. The CA correctly found that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing Llamas’ appeal purely on a technicality. While the filing of a certificate of non-forum shopping is mandatory, non-compliance may be excused upon showing of manifest equitable grounds proving substantial compliance. The CA found equitable grounds as Llamas subsequently submitted the required certificate with his motion for reconsideration. Furthermore, the CA had ample authority to make its own factual determination to avoid miscarriage of justice. On the substantive issue, the CA correctly found that Llamas was constructively dismissed. Petitioners failed to prove overt acts showing Llamas’ clear intention to abandon his job. On the contrary, placing Llamas in a situation where he was forced to quit—by requiring him to sign a resignation letter as a precondition for receiving his taxi key—rendered his continued employment impossible, unreasonable, or unlikely, amounting to constructive dismissal. Llamas’ immediate filing of the illegal dismissal case negated the charge of abandonment. The petitioners’ claim of several infractions was brushed aside as they did not charge Llamas for these infractions to give him an opportunity to explain his side. Accordingly, the CA ordered petitioners to pay Llamas separation pay (in lieu of reinstatement due to strained relations), full backwages, and other benefits from the time of dismissal up to the finality of the decision. The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the CA’s legal correctness in reversing the NLRC for grave abuse of discretion.