Halcon v. Nissan Seiko Corp.

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 209360. February 4, 2019.]

RAMIL HALCON, petitioner,vs. NISSAN SEIKO CORPORATION/YOLANDA DELA CRUZ, respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated February 4, 2019 which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 209360 (RAMIL HALCON, Petitioner, v. NISSAN SEIKO CORPORATION/YOLANDA DELA CRUZ, Respondents) — After a judicious perusal of the records herein, the Court resolves to DENY the petition for review on certiorari and AFFIRM the September 25, 2012 decision 1 and September 26, 2013 resolution 2 by the Court of Appeals (CA) for failure of the petitioner to sufficiently show any reversible error on the part of the CA in reversing the decision 3 rendered on March 25, 2019 by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and declaring that the respondents are not liable for unlawfully terminating the petitioner.

In this appeal, the petitioner contends that the CA had erred in ruling that he was not constructively dismissed; that he attempted to return to work but was denied entry to the company premises each time; that he called the respondent company on several instances to inquire whether he could report to work, but was not advised as to when he may be permitted to go back; and that he failed to present sufficient evidence to prove that he was physically abused by one of the co-owners of the respondent company, Mr. Maritoshi Seki.

The Court is unconvinced.

Although the employer carries the burden of proof that the termination of an employee was for a valid or authorized cause, 4 the employee must first establish by substantial evidence the fact of his dismissal. If there is no proof of termination by the employer, there is no point in even considering the cause for it. 5

We note herein the absence of proof showing that the petitioner had been terminated from employment. Other than the petitioner's bare allegations, he failed to present convincing proof that the respondents had unlawfully dismissed him. The petitioner's unsubstantiated claims that the respondents had barred him from entering the work premises and that they did not heed his plea to be allowed to work cannot be sustained as they lacked substantial details to be credible. 6

Thusly, in the absence of any showing of an overt or positive act proving that respondents had dismissed petitioner, the latter's claim of illegal dismissal cannot be sustained, the same being self-serving, conjectural and of no probative value. 7 The petitioner's failure to provide us with details surrounding his dismissal makes us question the truthfulness and veracity of his allegations.

Moreover, We cannot fault the respondents for their failure to require the petitioner to report back to work since they had no opportunity to do so. We note that the petitioner had immediately filed his complaint for physical injuries against Seki on August 11, 2008 and subsequently, a complaint for constructive dismissal before the DOLE CAMANAVA Office on August 19, 2008. In the meantime, conferences had been conducted before the barangay officials on August 13, 15 and 22, 2008 to settle the petitioner's complaint for physical injuries. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an illegal dismissal case against the respondents before the NLRC on November 19, 2008. 8 Pertinently, the CA had observed that:

Before Respondent filed his complaint with the barangay, Petitioners were asking Respondent to report for work. We thus take exception to the NLRC's negative interpretation of taking merely an afterthought the Petitioner's action of tendering the memorandum to the Respondent at the barangay proceedings in compliance with the twin notice requirement. We are rather of the impression that the Petitioners have been pressed to do so at that time also as a measure of self-protection because of the surprise action of the Respondent and the immediacy of the circumstances. 9

Finally, We cannot sustain the claim of constructive dismissal in the absence of proof that the respondents committed any act of clear discrimination, insensibility and disdain against the petitioner. Note herein that the allegation of physical abuse had been unsupported either by the testimonies of his co-workers, medical certificates, or any other evidence that may have corroborated his claim. Constructive dismissal cannot be appreciated in this instance in view of the absence of proof that the petitioner's continued employment had become unbearable, intolerable and oppressive.

Considering that the petitioner no longer reported for work and that the respondents did not raise abandonment as a defense, the CA correctly held that the respondents are not liable for illegal dismissal. Jurisprudence provides that in instances where there was neither dismissal by the employer nor abandonment by the employee, the proper remedy is to reinstate the employee to his former position but without the award of backwages. 10 It has been settled that in a case where the employee's failure to work was occasioned neither by his abandonment nor by a termination, the burden of economic loss is not rightfully shifted to the employer; each party must bear his own loss." 11

WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition for review on certiorari for being unmeritorious and AFFIRMS the September 25, 2012 decision and September 26, 2013 resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 115270.

SO ORDERED." Del Castillo, J., official on leave; Jardeleza, J., designated as Acting Working Chairperson of the First Division per Special Order No. 2636 dated January 31, 2019.

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 40-49; penned by Court of Appeals Justice Francisco P. Acosta with Associate Justice Fernanda Lampas-Peralta and Associate Justice Angelita A. Gacutan, concurring.

2.Id. at 51.

3.Id. at 69-83.

4.MZR Industries v. Colambot, G.R. No. 179001, August 28, 2013, 704 SCRA 150, 157.

5.Remoticado v. Typical Construction Trading Corp., G.R. No. 206529, April 23, 2018.

6.Doctor v. NII Enterprises, G.R. No. 194001, November 22, 2017.

7.MZR Industries v. Colambot, G.R. No. 179001, August 28, 2013, 704 SCRA 150, 157.

8.Doctor v. NII Enterprises, G.R. No. 194001, November 22, 2017.

9.Rollo, pp. 46-47.

10.Jolo's Kiddie Carts v. Caballa, G.R. No. 230682, November 29, 2017.

11.Borja v. Miñoza, G.R. No. 218384, July 3, 2017, 828 SCRA 647, 662.