G.R. No. 202645 , August 05, 2015
Fortunato R. Baron, Manolo B. Bersabal, and Recto A. Melendres, Petitioners, vs. EPE Transport, Inc. and/or Ernesto P. Enriquez, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners were taxi drivers employed by respondent EPE Transport, Inc., paid on a boundary system and were members of the exclusive bargaining agent. In August 2008, Bersabal inquired about boundary rates allegedly not in accordance with the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) and was told he was free to leave if he did not want to follow company policy. Bersabal and other drivers filed a complaint for CBA violation and unfair labor practice. In September 2008, Baron and Melendres similarly questioned the overcharging and allegedly received the same response, leading them to file a complaint for unfair labor practice. Subsequently, Baron, Melendres, and Bersabal claimed they were prevented from using their taxi units and entering company premises on September 26, September 28, and October 1, 2008, respectively. They then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. Respondents denied dismissal, claiming petitioners failed to return to work and went on absence without official leave (AWOL) after filing their complaints. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the illegal dismissal case for lack of jurisdiction and cause of action, crediting respondents’ claim. The NLRC reversed, finding illegal dismissal, rejecting the AWOL defense, and awarding backwages and separation pay. The Court of Appeals reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s decision, finding petitioners failed to sufficiently prove dismissal and that their absence was unauthorized.

ISSUE

Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the National Labor Relations Commission gravely abused its discretion in finding petitioners to have been illegally dismissed.

RULING

Yes, the Court of Appeals committed reversible error. The Supreme Court ruled that the NLRC did not gravely abuse its discretion. The burden of proving that an employee was not dismissed, or that the dismissal was for a valid cause, rests on the employer. This burden applies regardless of whether the employer admits or denies the dismissal. Respondents failed to discharge this burden. Their claim of abandonment was negated by petitioners’ immediate filing of complaints to protest their perceived unfair treatment, which is inconsistent with an intent to abandon work. The NLRC’s finding of illegal dismissal was consistent with legal principles and jurisprudence. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted the petition, effectively reinstating the NLRC’s decision which found illegal dismissal and awarded appropriate remedies.