G.R. No. 228671 - Expedition Construction Corp. v. Africa
G.R. No. 228671 - Expedition Construction Corp. v. Africa
G.R. No. 228671 - Expedition Construction Corp. v. Africa
DECISION
DEL CASTILLO, J : p
Factual Antecedents
Respondents appealed to the NLRC where they insisted that they were
under Expedition's control and supervision and that they were regular
employees who worked continuously and exclusively for an uninterrupted
period ranging from four to 15 years and whose tasks were necessary and
desirable in the usual business of Expedition.
Ruling of the National Labor Relations Commission
Issues
Our Ruling
In illegal dismissal cases, the employer has the burden of proving that
the termination was for a valid or authorized cause. However, it is likewise
incumbent upon an employee to first establish by substantial evidence the
fact of his dismissal from employment 36 by positive and overt acts of an
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
employer indicating the intention to dismiss. 37 It must also be stressed that
the evidence must be clear, positive and convincing. 38 Mere allegation is not
proof or evidence. 39
In this case, there was no positive or direct evidence to substantiate
respondents' claim that they were dismissed from employment. Aside from
mere assertions, the record is bereft of any indication that respondents were
barred from Expedition's premises. If at all, the evidence on record showed
that Expedition intended to give respondents new assignments as a result of
the termination of the garbage hauling contracts with Quezon City and
Caloocan City where respondents were regularly dispatched. Despite the loss
of some clients, Expedition tried to accommodate respondents and offered to
engage them in other garbage hauling projects with other LGUs, a fact which
respondents did not refute. However, instead of returning and waiting for
their next assignments, respondents instituted an illegal dismissal case
against Expedition. Note that even during the mandatory conciliation and
mediation conference between the parties, Expedition manifested its
willingness to accept respondents back to work. Unfortunately, it was
respondents who no longer wanted to return to work. In fact, in their
complaints, respondents prayed for the payment of separation pay instead
of reinstatement.
Here, there was no sufficient proof that respondents were actually laid
off from work. Thus, the CA had no basis in ruling that respondents'
employment was illegally terminated since the fact of dismissal was not
adequately supported by substantial evidence. There being no dismissal, the
status quo between respondents and Expedition should be maintained.
However, it cannot be denied that their relationship has already been
ruptured in that respondents are no longer willing to be reinstated anymore.
Under the circumstances, the Court finds that the grant of separation pay as
a form of financial assistance is deemed equitable. ATICcS
7. See Complaints filed by: (a) respondents Alexander M. Africa, Mardy Malapit,
Jesus Eser, Jacob Rongcales, Jonamel Caro, Alfredo Riles, Reynaldo Garcia,
Freddie Dela Cruz, Junie Aquiban, Crisincio Garcia, and Dino Aquiban, on
November 12, 2013, docketed as NLRC NCR Case No. 12-16015-13 (Records,
pp. 1-3); (b) respondents Samuel Pillos and Jeffrey A. Valenzuela, on
December 16, 2013, docketed as NLRC NCR Case No. 12-16159-13 ( id . at 8-
9); and (c) respondent Erwin Velasquez Hallare, on January 8, 2014, docketed
as NLRC NCR Case No. 01-00166-14 (id . at 16-17).
8. Id. at 50-63.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
9. Id. at 36-48.
10. Id. at 77-85.
11. See Minutes of the Mandatory Conciliation and Mediation Conference dated
January 28, 2014, id . at 22-23.
12. Id. at 101-105.
13. Id. at 106.
14. Id. at 108.
28. Century Iron Works, Inc. v. Bañas , 711 Phil. 576, 585 (2013).
2 9 . Protective Maximum Security Agency, Inc. v. Fuentes , 753 Phil. 482, 506
(2015).
30. South East International Rattan, Inc. v. Coming, 729 Phil. 298, 306 (2014).
31. Chavez v. National Labor Relations Commission , 489 Phil. 444, 457 (2005).
32. Almeda v. Asahi Glass Philippines, Inc., 586 Phil. 103, 113 (2008).
35. Id.
36. Carique v. Philippine Scout Veterans Security and Investigation Agency, Inc. ,
769 Phil. 754, 762 (2015).
38. Tri-C General Services v. Matuto, 770 Phil. 251, 262 (2015).
39. Villanueva v. Philippine Daily Inquirer, Inc. 605 Phil. 926, 937 (2009).
40. Luna v. Allado Construction Co., Inc. , 664 Phil. 509, 524-527 (2011); Piñero v.
National Labor Relations Commission , 480 Phil. 534, 543-544 (2004);
Indophil Acrylic Mfg. Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission ,
297 Phil. 803, 810 (1993).
41. 521 Phil. 61, 70 (2006).