G.R. No. 241814 , June 20, 2021
Site for Eyes, Inc. (formerly Delos Reyes Optical City, Inc.), Petitioner, vs. Dr. Amor F. Daming, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Site for Eyes, Inc. hired respondent Dr. Amor F. Daming as an Optometrist on November 20, 2012. After a break, she was rehired on April 8, 2014, signing a one-year employment contract with a monthly salary of P28,000.00. Her employment was renewed on April 20, 2015, for another year with an increased monthly salary of P33,000.00, but she did not receive the P5,000.00 increase. On March 22, 2016, respondent filed a request for assistance with the DOLE to recover unpaid wages and other benefits. Subsequently, petitioner conducted an audit and discovered missing items. During a SEnA hearing on April 20, 2016, petitioner gave respondent a show cause notice regarding the missing items. Respondent accepted the notice on the condition she could examine the store receipts but was then forbidden entry into the shop, effectively terminating her employment. She filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with money claims. Petitioner argued respondent was a fixed-term employee whose contract merely expired and denied granting a salary increase. The Labor Arbiter ruled respondent was a regular employee and was constructively dismissed. The NLRC and the Court of Appeals affirmed this decision.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the findings of the NLRC and the Labor Arbiter that respondent was a regular employee who was illegally dismissed.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ Decision and Resolution. The Court held that the CA correctly determined that the NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The factual findings of the NLRC, affirmed by the CA, are generally conclusive. The Court found that respondent was a regular employee under Article 280 of the Labor Code, as she performed activities necessary and desirable in petitioner’s optical business. The successive fixed-term contracts were a circumvention of her right to security of tenure. Her being barred from the shop constituted constructive dismissal, which was illegal due to lack of just or authorized cause and due process. Petitioner was ordered to pay respondent backwages, separation pay, unpaid salary, overtime pay, proportionate 13th-month pay, wage differential, overtime pay differential, 13th-month pay differential, attorney’s fees, and legal interest.