G.R. No. 212096, October 14, 2015
Nightowl Watchman & Security Agency, Inc., Petitioner, vs. Nestor Lumahan, Respondent.

FACTS

Sometime in December 1996, petitioner Nightowl Watchman & Security Agency, Inc. hired respondent Nestor P. Lumahan as a security guard. His last assignment was at Steelworld Manufacturing Corporation. On January 9, 2000, Lumahan filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and various money claims against Nightowl. He later amended his complaint to include non-payment of 13th month pay and illegal suspension, and corrected his date of dismissal to June 9, 1999. Lumahan admitted he did not report for work from May 16, 1999, to June 8, 1999, claiming he had to go to Iloilo to attend to his dying grandfather. He alleged that Nightowl refused to give him permission to leave, but Steelworld did. When he reported back to work on June 9, 1999, Nightowl did not allow him to return to duty. Nightowl claimed Lumahan left his post on April 22, 1999, and failed to report back, arguing it never dismissed him and that he only resurfaced when he filed the complaint.
The Labor Arbiter initially dismissed the illegal dismissal complaint but awarded money claims. The case was remanded, and a second Labor Arbiter declared Lumahan illegally dismissed, awarding backwages and separation pay. The NLRC reversed this, finding no evidence of dismissal and concluding an “informal voluntary termination of employment” occurred. The Court of Appeals granted Lumahan’s certiorari petition, finding grave abuse of discretion in the NLRC decision, reinstated the second Labor Arbiter’s ruling, and awarded backwages and separation pay. Nightowl filed the present petition.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the NLRC decision and ruling that respondent Nestor Lumahan was illegally dismissed.

RULING

The Supreme Court partly granted the petition. It first overruled Lumahan’s procedural objections, finding Nightowl’s petition for review on certiorari compliant with Rule 45 requirements. On the substantive issue, the Court held that the core question—whether Lumahan was dismissed—is factual. In a Rule 45 review of a CA decision rendered under Rule 65 in a labor case, the Court examines whether the CA correctly determined the presence or absence of grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC. The Court found that the NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The NLRC’s conclusion that Lumahan was not dismissed but had voluntarily terminated his employment was supported by substantial evidence, including his failure to sign payroll slips and his inconsistent claims regarding his dismissal date. The burden of proving illegal dismissal rests on the employee, and Lumahan failed to substantiate his claim with clear and positive evidence that he was actually prevented from returning to work. The CA therefore erred in substituting its own judgment for that of the NLRC. The NLRC decision was reinstated, and the complaint for illegal dismissal remained dismissed.