G.R. No. 190944, December 13, 2017
Advan Motor, Inc., Petitioner vs. Victoriano G. Veneracion, Respondent

FACTS

Respondent Victoriano Veneracion was employed as a Sales Consultant by petitioner Advan Motor, Inc. in September 1999. On May 21, 2001, he was served a termination letter effective May 2, 2001, citing repeated AWOL violations for more than six consecutive days and management’s loss of trust and confidence due to alleged abandonment of duties. Veneracion filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, alleging he was harassed and pressured to resign after being suspected of planning to organize a union, and that his application for leave in April 2001 was verbally approved but later denied, leading to the withholding of his salary.
In its defense, Advan Motor contended that Veneracion was frequently absent, failed to meet sales quotas, and went on an unannounced leave. The company claimed he merely handed his leave request to a security guard without proper endorsement and later informed the Personnel Officer he would no longer report for work. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Veneracion, finding the dismissal illegal. This decision was affirmed by the NLRC and subsequently by the Court of Appeals, which also awarded full backwages.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the findings of illegal dismissal and in awarding full backwages without deducting Veneracion’s interim earnings.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. On the substantive issue of dismissal, the Court upheld the consistent findings of the Labor Arbiter, NLRC, and CA that Advan Motor failed to prove the validity of Veneracion’s termination. The employer bears the burden of proving just cause for dismissal with clear and convincing evidence. The company’s claim of abandonment and AWOL was unsubstantiated, as it did not present corroborative evidence, such as a sworn statement from the security guard who allegedly received the leave request or documentation from the Personnel Department. Mere allegations are insufficient to discharge this heavy burden.
Regarding the award of backwages, the Court clarified that backwages and separation pay are distinct reliefs. Separation pay is granted when reinstatement is no longer viable, serving as a financial bridge. In contrast, backwages are awarded on grounds of equity to restore income lost due to unlawful dismissal; they are a form of public reparation for the employer’s unlawful act and are not conditioned on the employee’s interim earnings or mitigation. Since Veneracion was illegally dismissed, the award of full backwages from the date of dismissal until finality of the decision, without deduction for any income he may have earned elsewhere, was proper and in accordance with established jurisprudence.