Yap v. Giant Eagle Security Services, Inc.

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 246241. August 28, 2019.]

WILLIE A. YAP, petitioner, vs.GIANT EAGLE SECURITY SERVICES, INC./JONATHAN C. PE, respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedAugust 28, 2019which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 246241 (Willie A. Yap v. Giant Eagle Security Services, Inc./Jonathan C. Pe)

After a perusal of the records of the case, this Court resolves to deny the petition for failure of petitioner Willie A. Yap to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed reversible error in dismissing the petition.

Nonetheless, the Court deems it proper to clarify the discussion made by the CA on account of its declaration that the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) erred in ordering petitioner's reinstatement. 1 It seems that the CA misconstrued the decision 2 of the NLRC regarding petitioner's return to work order.

Settled is the rule that "where the employee was neither found to have been dismissed nor to have abandoned his/her work, the general course of action is for the Court to dismiss the complaint, direct the employee to return to work, and order the employer to accept the employee." 3

In this case, considering that there has been no dismissal at all, there can be no reinstatement. One cannot be reinstated to a position he is still holding. 4 Consequently, there is likewise no justification for the award of backwages. The NLRC was correct in ruling against the payment of backwages, following the "no work, no pay" principle.

Since the foregoing circumstances surrounding the alleged termination are taken into account, respondents Giant Eagle Security Services, Inc./Jonathan C. Pe should accept petitioner back to his former position. "However, under the principle of 'no work, no pay,' there should be no payment of backwages. 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." 5

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated August 13, 2018 and the Resolution dated March 14, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 152969 and CA-G.R. SP No. 153012 are hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that respondents Giant Eagle Security Services, Inc./Jonathan C. Pe are ORDERED to accept petitioner Willie A. Yap to his former position, but without payment of backwages within a period of thirty (30) days from finality of judgment. On the other hand, petitioner Willie A. Yap is DIRECTED to report for work within ten (10) days from notice from the respondents, otherwise, he shall be deemed to have abandoned his employment with the respondents.

SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1. See CA Decision dated August 13, 2018. Penned by Associate Justice Renato C. Francisco, with Associate Justices Magdangal M. De Leon and Pedro B. Corales, concurring; rollo, pp. 35-48.

2. See NLRC Decision dated May 31, 2017; id. at 83-95.

3.Dee Jay Inn v. Rañeses, 796 Phil. 574, 595-596 (2016).

4.Verdadero v. Barney Autolines Group of Companies Transport, Inc., 693 Phil. 646, 660 (2012).

5.Tri-C General Services v. Matuto, 770 Phil. 251, 264 (2015).