GR 223314; (July, 2020) (Digest)
G.R. No. 223314 , July 15, 2020
ROBE ANN B. LUSABIA, PERCIVAL CONTRERAS, NIDA ACSAYAN, FLOR ALIMONSURIN, LITO DENAGA, REGGIE VERGABERA, AND SHIELA MARIE A. BARRERA, PETITIONERS, VS. SUPER K DRUG CORPORATION, KRISTINE Y. GARCELLANO AND MARCO Y. GARCELLANO, RESPONDENTS.
FACTS
Petitioners were employees of Super K Drug Corporation, owned by respondents Kristine and Marco Garcellano, hired between 2009-2011. In January 2012, they filed a labor complaint for money claims before the NLRC-Single Entry Approach (SENA), alleging underpayment, illegal salary deductions for lost items and as cash bonds, and being forced to sign payrolls reflecting amounts higher than what they actually received. During the SENA proceedings, petitioners Lusabia, Barrera, and Contreras were allegedly summoned by respondent Kristine Garcellano and ordered to withdraw their complaints, with threats of dismissal. Upon their refusal, they were dismissed and barred from the workplace. After petitioners sought assistance from the Trade Union Congress of the Philippines (TUCP), the remaining petitioners (Acsayan, Alimonsurin, Denaga, and Vergabera) were also allegedly dismissed. Petitioners amended their complaint to include illegal dismissal.
Respondents claimed petitioners were not dismissed but had abandoned their work, failing to report starting February 1, 2012. They asserted they sent Return to Work Notices via registered mail during the SENA proceedings, which petitioners ignored. The Labor Arbiter (LA) dismissed the complaint, finding no proof of dismissal and crediting respondents’ payrolls over petitioners’ claims. The NLRC reversed the LA, ruling petitioners were illegally dismissed as the Return to Work Notices were unproven and likely afterthoughts, and finding underpayment based on SSS Employee Static Information. The Court of Appeals reinstated the LA’s decision, holding that petitioners disobeyed the return-to-work order, indicating abandonment, and that the payrolls, not the SSS data, were the best evidence of wages paid.
ISSUE
1. Whether petitioners were illegally dismissed or had abandoned their employment.
2. Whether petitioners are entitled to their money claims for underpayment, illegal deductions, and other labor standard benefits.
RULING
1. On Illegal Dismissal: The Supreme Court ruled that petitioners were illegally dismissed. Abandonment requires a clear, deliberate, and unjustified refusal to resume employment, which was not present. Petitioners’ immediate filing of a labor complaint is inconsistent with an intent to abandon. The Return to Work Notices sent by registered mail were ineffective as there was no conclusive proof petitioners received them, especially since respondents could have personally served the notices during the ongoing SENA hearings where petitioners were present. Respondents failed to comply with the twin-notice requirement for termination. The affidavit from the TUCP employee, while based on interviews, supported petitioners’ claim of being barred from work. Thus, the dismissal was illegal.
2. On Money Claims: The Supreme Court ruled that petitioners are entitled to their money claims. The SSS Employee Static Information, being an official record of mandatory employer contributions, is competent evidence to prove the actual salaries received and revealed underpayments when compared to the applicable minimum wage rates. The payrolls presented by respondents, which petitioners claimed they were forced to sign inaccurately, could not prevail over the SSS data. Petitioners are therefore entitled to salary differentials, full backwages, reinstatement, 13th-month pay, and commutation of unused service incentive leaves. The claims for illegal deductions for lost items and unreleased cash bonds were denied due to insufficient evidence, such as the photographs of a robber not proving the deductions occurred.
DISPOSITIVE:
The Decision of the Court of Appeals was REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Decision of the NLRC was REINSTATED with MODIFICATION, deleting the award for illegal deductions. Respondents were ordered to reinstate petitioners and pay them full backwages, salary differentials, 13th-month pay, and commuted service incentive leave pay.