G.R. No. 235725 . September 28, 2022
JOEL A. TAPIA, PETITIONER, VS. GA2 PHARMACEUTICAL, INC., RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Petitioner Joel A. Tapia was employed by respondent GA2 Pharmaceutical, Inc. as a pharmacist. He alleged that on June 11, 2015, after requesting to be excused from a delivery task due to illness and a number coding scheme, the company’s General Manager, Laney Vijay Saldanha, scolded him, ordered the drafting of a resignation letter, and, upon his refusal to sign, told him to go home and never return. Tapia subsequently filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. GA2 contested this, claiming Tapia was a probationary employee hired only in March 2015, who abandoned his work after a June 9, 2015 altercation. The company asserted it sent a Notice to Explain (NTE) via registered mail regarding his absences.
The Labor Arbiter dismissed Tapia’s complaint, finding no proof of arbitrary dismissal. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed, declaring Tapia illegally dismissed and awarding separation pay, backwages, and attorney’s fees. The Court of Appeals partially granted GA2’s petition, ordering Tapia’s reinstatement but denying backwages. The appellate court found Tapia failed to substantiate his dismissal claim but also rejected GA2’s defenses of abandonment and probationary status for lack of credible evidence.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ordering Tapia’s reinstatement without awarding backwages despite finding that GA2 failed to prove a valid cause for dismissal.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the Court of Appeals, and reinstated the NLRC decision with modification, awarding full backwages and separation pay in lieu of reinstatement. The legal logic is anchored on the fundamental principle that in illegal dismissal cases, the employer bears the burden of proof to show that the dismissal was for a just or authorized cause. GA2 failed to discharge this burden. Its claim of abandonment was unsubstantiated, as the alleged NTE was not proven to have been received by Tapia, and his immediate filing of a complaint negated any intent to abandon his work. The claim of probationary status was also rejected due to GA2’s failure to prove it communicated the reasonable standards for regularization at the time of engagement.
Consequently, Tapia was deemed illegally dismissed. The grant of reinstatement without backwages by the Court of Appeals was a reversible error. Backwages are a necessary consequence of illegal dismissal, intended to restore the employee to the position they would have been in had the dismissal not occurred. Denying backwages while ordering reinstatement unjustly deprives the employee of earnings lost during the litigation period. Given the strained relations, separation pay in lieu of reinstatement was warranted. Thus, Tapia is entitled to full backwages from dismissal until finality of the decision, plus separation pay.