G.R. No. 191823. October 05, 2016.
DEE JAY’S INN AND CAFE AND/OR MELINDA FERRARIS, PETITIONERS, VS. MA. LORINA RAÑESES, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Petitioner Dee Jay’s Inn and Cafe, owned by Melinda Ferraris, employed respondent Ma. Lorina Rañeses as a cashier. In January 2005, Rañeses asked Ferraris for the employer’s share of SSS contributions and overtime pay. Ferraris allegedly became infuriated and told her to seek other employment. Rañeses subsequently filed complaints with the SSS and the NLRC for monetary claims. She alleged that after Ferraris learned of these complaints, her employment was terminated on February 5, 2005.
Petitioners presented a contrary version. They claimed that on February 4, 2005, a cash shortage of ₱400.00 occurred. When Ferraris confronted Rañeses and a co-employee about it, they denied responsibility, were scolded, and then walked out, never returning to work. Petitioners denied dismissing Rañeses and asserted she abandoned her job. The Labor Arbiter initially ruled for the petitioners, finding no substantial proof of dismissal, a decision affirmed by the NLRC. The Court of Appeals reversed, declaring Rañeses illegally dismissed and ordering remand for computation of monetary awards.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether respondent Ma. Lorina Rañeses was illegally dismissed or if she voluntarily abandoned her employment.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that Rañeses was not illegally dismissed. The legal logic hinges on the burden of proof in dismissal cases. While the employer generally bears the burden to prove that a dismissal was for a just or authorized cause, this burden shifts to the employee if the employer categorically denies the dismissal. A dismissal is a positive, unequivocal act by the employer; thus, the employee must first substantiate the claim that such an act occurred. The Court found Rañeses failed to discharge this burden. Her allegation of termination remained unsubstantiated and was contradicted by the affidavit of a co-employee supporting the petitioners’ claim of abandonment after a confrontation over a cash shortage. The Labor Arbiter and NLRC correctly found no conclusive evidence of a dismissal act by Ferraris.
However, considering the passage of over ten years from the cessation of employment and the protracted litigation, the Court deemed it impossible and inequitable to order reinstatement. Applying principles of equity and justice, and citing precedent where separation pay is awarded despite a finding of no illegal dismissal under similar circumstances, the Court modified the NLRC decision. Petitioners were ordered to pay Rañeses separation pay equivalent to one month’s salary for every year of service, computed until February 4, 2005. This award is not a finding of illegal dismissal but an equitable relief due to the impracticability of reinstatement.