GR 211892; (December, 2017) (Digest)
G.R. No. 211892, December 6, 2017
Innodata Knowledge Services, Inc. vs. Socorro D’Marie T. Inting, et al.
FACTS
Petitioner Innodata Knowledge Services, Inc. (IKSI) was engaged by a US-based client, Applied Computer Technologies, for a litigation document review project requiring lawyers or law graduates. For this specific project, IKSI hired the respondents under five-year employment contracts as senior and junior reviewers. On January 7, 2010, IKSI placed the respondents on an indefinite forced leave, citing changes in business conditions and client requirements. Subsequently, on May 27, 2010, IKSI formally terminated their contracts due to the unavailability of new work. The respondents filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) ruled that the respondents were project employees validly placed on a floating status and were not illegally dismissed.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the NLRC and declaring that the respondents were illegally dismissed.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, ruling that the respondents were regular employees who were illegally dismissed. The legal logic is anchored on the nature of their employment and the circumstances of their termination. First, the Court held that the respondents were regular employees, not project employees. Their tasks as reviewers were necessary and desirable to IKSI’s usual business of data processing and information capture. Their employment for a specific project did not detract from their regular status, as the project was within IKSI’s normal business operations. The five-year contract duration further indicated the necessity and desirability of their functions beyond a specific undertaking.
Second, the Court found the dismissal illegal. Placing an employee on forced leave is tantamount to constructive dismissal if it is indefinite and effectively severs the employment relationship. The indefinite forced leave imposed on the respondents, followed by the termination due to alleged lack of work, constituted constructive dismissal. IKSI failed to substantiate its claim of a bona fide suspension of operations or to prove that the termination was due to an authorized cause under the Labor Code. The burden of proof rests on the employer to justify dismissal, which IKSI did not satisfy. Consequently, the respondents are entitled to backwages, separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, and damages.