GR 249134; (November, 2020) (Digest)
G.R. No. 249134, November 25, 2020
PHILIPPINE RABBIT BUS LINES, INC., PETITIONER, VS. EDWIN A. BUMAGAT, RESPONDENT.
FACTS
Petitioner Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. hired respondent Edwin Bumagat as a bus driver in March 1991. On July 31, 1997, while driving a company bus, respondent was involved in a serious accident caused by a speeding truck, resulting in severe injuries. He underwent multiple surgeries over more than two years, exhausting his six months of sick leave credits. On March 17, 2000, respondent wrote to the company president requesting reinstatement as a bus driver, but received no response.
Consequently, respondent sought assistance from the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE). He initially withdrew a request after petitioner promised him a job at the Laoag City Terminal, a promise which was not fulfilled. Respondent then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint, a decision affirmed by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), which found no factual dismissal and noted it was impractical for petitioner to keep the job open for nearly three years.
ISSUE
Whether petitioner illegally dismissed respondent from his employment.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court ruled that respondent was illegally dismissed. The Court affirmed the findings of the Court of Appeals, which reversed the NLRC, with modification regarding the remedy. The legal logic centers on the burden of proof in termination cases and the concept of constructive dismissal.
The employer bears the burden of proving that a dismissal is for a just or authorized cause. Petitioner failed to discharge this burden. Its defense—that it could not reinstate respondent due to his medical condition and a doctor’s certification of unfitness—was insufficient. The Court found that petitioner did not validly terminate respondent based on any ground under Article 297 (formerly 282) of the Labor Code, such as serious misconduct, gross neglect, fraud, willful breach, or disease affecting work performance with proper certification. The failure to act on respondent’s request for reinstatement and the broken promise of an alternative assignment constituted constructive dismissal, as it effectively severed the employment relationship without lawful cause.
Consequently, petitioner is liable for illegal dismissal. Given the strained relations and the lapse of time, reinstatement was deemed no longer feasible. The Court modified the CA decision and ordered payment of separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, computed at one month’s pay for every year of service, plus full backwages, allowances, and other benefits from the time of dismissal until the finality of the resolution, with legal interest. The case was remanded to the Labor Arbiter for computation.