GR 211312; (December, 2016) (Digest)
G.R. No. 211312. December 05, 2016
PEOPLE’S SECURITY, INC. AND NESTOR RACHO, PETITIONERS, VS. JULIUS S. FLORES AND ESTEBAN S. TAPIRU, RESPONDENTS.
FACTS
Respondents Julius Flores and Esteban Tapiru were security guards employed by petitioner People’s Security, Inc. (PSI). After PSI’s service contract with PLDT was terminated in 2001, the respondents were recalled and later reassigned to other client sites. On January 13, 2003, they were relieved from their post at a warehouse in Sta. Ana, Manila, pursuant to a Special Order from PSI’s operations manager. The petitioners claimed the relief was a management prerogative due to a performance evaluation and that the respondents subsequently abandoned their jobs by failing to report for new assignments.
The respondents, however, filed a complaint for illegal dismissal in 2005. They asserted that after being relieved, they repeatedly reported to PSI’s office but were refused any new assignment. The Labor Arbiter ruled in their favor, finding illegal dismissal and rejecting the defense of abandonment. The NLRC reversed this decision, citing that the respondents had sought employment with other security agencies shortly after their relief, which indicated they had severed the employer-employee relationship.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the respondents were illegally dismissed or whether they abandoned their employment.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that the respondents were illegally dismissed. The legal logic centers on the burden of proof in dismissal cases and the elements of abandonment. The employer bears the burden to prove that the dismissal was for a just or authorized cause. The petitioners failed to discharge this burden. The act of relieving the respondents via a Special Order constituted a termination of employment initiated by the employer. The defense of abandonment requires proof of a clear, deliberate, and unjustified refusal to resume employment, coupled with an intent to sever the employer-employee relationship.
The Court found no substantial evidence of such intent. The fact that the respondents sought other employment months after being effectively locked out by PSI does not, by itself, prove abandonment. It is a natural consequence of their dismissal and their need to earn a living. Their act of filing the illegal dismissal case is inconsistent with an intent to abandon. Consequently, the dismissal was illegal. However, the Court modified the liability, absolving corporate officer Nestor Racho from solidary liability. The doctrine of piercing the corporate veil was not applicable as there was no evidence that Racho used the corporate fiction to commit fraud or justify a wrong. Only the corporate entity, PSI, was held liable for the monetary awards.