G.R. No. 206942, February 25, 2015.
VICENTE C. TATEL, Petitioner, vs. JLFP INVESTIGATION SECURITY AGENCY, INC., JOSE LUIS F. PAMINTUAN, and/or PAOLO C. TURNO, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Vicente C. Tatel was hired as a security guard by respondent JLFP Investigation Security Agency, Inc. on March 14, 1998. He alleged he was last posted at BaggerWerken and was required to work 12 hours daily, receiving only ₱12,400.00 monthly. On October 14, 2009, he filed a complaint for underpayment of salaries and other benefits. On October 24, 2009, he was placed on “floating status.” After six months without assignment, he filed a complaint for illegal dismissal on May 4, 2010. Respondents denied dismissal, claiming they removed Tatel from BaggerWerken on August 24, 2009 due to infractions, but subsequently reassigned him to SKI (September 16 to October 12, 2009) and IPVG (October 21 to 23, 2009). They asserted Tatel abandoned his work after ignoring a November 26, 2009 memorandum directing him to report back. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint, citing Tatel’s inconsistent statements in his two complaints regarding his hire date, dismissal date, and salary. The NLRC reversed, finding illegal dismissal, and ordered reinstatement with backwages and other monetary awards. The Court of Appeals reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s dismissal, agreeing that the inconsistencies rendered his claim suspect and that he had abandoned his work.

ISSUE

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

RULING

Yes, the Court of Appeals erred. The Supreme Court found the petition meritorious and held that Tatel was constructively dismissed. The general rule that only questions of law may be raised in a Rule 45 petition yields to exceptions, such as when the factual findings of the Court of Appeals and the NLRC are contradictory. The Court examined the evidence and concluded that Tatel was placed on floating status for more than six months, which constitutes constructive dismissal. The act of pulling him out from his assignment and the failure to provide further postings beyond October 23, 2009 amounted to dismissal. The defense of abandonment failed because respondents did not prove the two elements: (a) failure to report without justifiable reason, and (b) a clear intention to sever the employment relationship. Tatel’s receipt of the return-to-work memorandum and his subsequent visits to the office to seek assignment negated any intention to abandon. His inconsistent statements, while noted, did not outweigh the evidence of constructive dismissal. Consequently, the NLRC decision was reinstated, with Tatel entitled to reinstatement, backwages, and other monetary awards, or separation pay if reinstatement is not viable.