G.R. No. 230664 July 24, 2017
EDWARD M. COSUE, Petitioner vs. FERRITZINTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, MELISSA TANYA F. GERMINO AND ANTONIO A. FERNANDO, Respondents

FACTS

Petitioner Edward Cosue, a regular maintenance employee of respondent Ferritz Integrated Development Corporation (FIDC), was placed under preventive suspension from July 16 to August 13, 2014, pending investigation for allegedly obtaining keys and entering the company’s electrical room without permission. Following the suspension, petitioner met with respondent Germino on August 27, 2014. Respondents alleged they agreed petitioner would voluntarily resign, but he reneged and instead filed a complaint for illegal dismissal on October 9, 2014. Petitioner claimed he was dismissed after reporting missing electrical wires he believed were stolen by security guards. He sought reinstatement with backwages, damages, and various monetary claims including underpayment of wages.
The Labor Arbiter dismissed the illegal dismissal complaint, finding no evidence of termination, but ordered petitioner’s reinstatement without backwages and awarded salary differentials. The NLRC affirmed this decision. The Court of Appeals subsequently denied petitioner’s appeal, prompting this petition.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the NLRC’s ruling that petitioner was not illegally dismissed and in modifying the awarded salary differentials.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ ruling. On the issue of illegal dismissal, the Court upheld the consistent findings of the lower tribunals that petitioner failed to substantiate his claim. The burden of proof rests upon the employee to establish the fact of dismissal. The evidence showed only a preventive suspension and a subsequent meeting where resignation was discussed, but no overt act of termination by the employer. Petitioner’s failure to return to work after the meeting, without a clear dismissal from FIDC, did not constitute illegal dismissal.
Regarding the monetary claims, the Court modified the award. It sustained the finding of underpayment of wages but recalculated the salary differentials based on the correct three-year prescriptive period for money claims, resulting in a reduced award of P4,819.01. The Court also deleted the award of attorney’s fees, as the underpayment was not shown to be in bad faith. The reinstatement order was affirmed, but since the dismissal was not proven illegal, no backwages were warranted. The Court emphasized that factual findings of labor tribunals, when supported by substantial evidence, are accorded respect and finality.