G.R. No. 240005 , December 06, 2022
FLORENCIO B. NEDIRA, SUBSTITUTED BY HIS WIFE EMMA G. NEDIRA, PETITIONER, VS. NJ WORLD CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY MICHELLE Y. BUALAT, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Respondent NJ World Corporation, a taxi company, hired Florencio B. Nedira as a taxi driver on September 2, 2010. On October 29, 2013, Florencio filed a complaint for constructive dismissal before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). He died during the pendency of the proceedings, and his wife, Emma G. Nedira, filed an Omnibus Motion for Substitution and Extension of Time to File Position Paper. In her position paper, Emma alleged that Florencio was illegally suspended on July 16, 2013 and August 6, 2013 for infractions that were either untrue or undeserving of the length of suspension imposed. She claimed that when Florencio reported back to work after serving his suspension, respondent’s manager told him he would be placed on floating status until he paid a penalty of P6,000.00. Florencio allegedly asked that his bond be applied to the penalty but was refused. Emma asserted that Florencio was indefinitely placed on floating status conditioned upon payment of an amount he could not raise because he was denied work. She also claimed non-payment of unused service incentive leaves, 13th month pay, and sought the return of his bond. Respondent countered that the complaint did not survive Florencio’s death, denied constructive dismissal, and averred that Florencio was an on-call driver who stopped driving after failing to remit boundary payments.
The Labor Arbiter (LA) dismissed the complaint for lack of merit, finding that Emma, without personal knowledge, failed to substantiate the claims. The NLRC reversed the LA, granted the appeal, and ordered respondent to pay Florencio’s heirs backwages, separation pay, and attorney’s fees. The Court of Appeals (CA) annulled the NLRC resolutions and reinstated the LA’s decision, finding no evidence of constructive dismissal and that Emma’s allegations were unsupported by substantial evidence, while respondent proved Florencio’s failure to remit boundary payments.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in annulling and setting aside the NLRC’s resolutions which held that the deceased Florencio Nedira was illegally dismissed and his heirs are entitled to backwages and separation pay.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the appeal, finding no grave error in the CA decision. The Court held that Florencio, through Emma, failed to prove the fact of his illegal dismissal. The burden of proof rests on the employee to establish the fact of dismissal by substantial evidence before the burden shifts to the employer to prove its legality. The records contained a dearth of proof regarding the nature of the suspension and circumstances of the alleged constructive dismissal. No documentary evidence was presented to substantiate the claim that respondent required payment of P6,000.00 as a condition to return to work. Emma’s narration lacked specificities, and Florencio passed away before filing a position paper, leaving only the bare complaint. Consequently, the charge of constructive dismissal was not established.
The Court also took the opportunity to clarify the effect of a complainant’s death on a pending illegal dismissal suit. It ruled that a complaint for illegal dismissal is not merely a private suit for damages but a command for the employer to make public reparation for violating the Labor Code. The cause of action survives the death of the complainant because an employment contract is imbued with public interest, and the right to labor is considered property. Thus, substitution by the deceased’s heirs is proper to pursue the monetary claims arising from the employment. However, in this case, despite the propriety of substitution, the claim failed due to lack of evidence proving illegal dismissal.