G.R. No. 195428 ; August 29, 2012
JOMAR S. VERDADERO, Petitioner, vs. BARNEY AUTOLINES GROUP OF COMPANIES TRANSPORT, INC., and/or BARNEY D. CHITO, ROSELA F. CHITO and GERARDO GIMENEZ, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Jomar Verdadero was a bus conductor for respondent Barney Autolines Group of Companies Transport, Inc. (BALGCO). An incident occurred on January 27, 2008, involving Verdadero and respondent Atty. Gerardo Gimenez, BALGCO’s Disciplinary Officer. Gimenez, with his wife and companions, was on a bus where Verdadero was the conductor. The wife claimed she informed Verdadero of her identity to avail of a free ride per company policy, but a confrontation ensued. Gimenez filed a complaint for serious misconduct. During conciliation, Verdadero allegedly agreed to apologize but later submitted a counter-affidavit instead. He subsequently avoided work, fearing confrontation.
Verdadero claimed he was illegally dismissed as he received no work assignment after the incident. He filed a complaint before the Labor Arbiter (LA) for illegal dismissal and monetary claims. The LA dismissed the complaint, finding no dismissal but an ongoing investigation, and denied the monetary claims, classifying Verdadero as a field personnel paid on commission. The NLRC reversed the LA, ruling Verdadero was illegally dismissed, but the Court of Appeals (CA) reinstated the LA’s decision, finding no dismissal occurred.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether Verdadero was illegally dismissed from his employment.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition, upholding the CA’s finding that Verdadero was not dismissed. The legal logic rests on the principle that for a dismissal to be illegal, there must be a positive act of termination by the employer or a constructive dismissal where continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable, or unlikely. The Court found neither scenario present. The respondents did not issue any notice of termination. Instead, they actively sought Verdadero’s return to work to conclude the disciplinary proceedings, as evidenced by their letters. Verdadero’s own actions—avoiding work and refusing to participate in the investigation—prevented the company from assigning him duties and finalizing the administrative case. His claim of constructive dismissal failed because the employer’s actions were not unjustified; initiating an investigation based on a complaint is a management prerogative. The burden of proving dismissal lies with the employee, and Verdadero failed to substantiate that the company severed the employment relationship. Consequently, with no illegal dismissal, claims for backwages and separation pay have no basis. The Court also affirmed the denial of holiday and overtime pay, as Verdadero, a field personnel paid on commission, falls under the exceptions provided by labor rules.