Consolidated Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Oberio, et. al., G.R. No. 168424, June 8, 2007

FACTS:

The respondents are allegedly employed as drama talents by DYWB-Bombo Radyo, a radio station owned and operated by petitioner Consolidated Broadcasting System, Inc.

However, there was an issue raised which opposed by the respondents that sought respondents to file a case before DOLE.

DOLE after its inspection of DYWB station found out that the petitioner is guilty of violation of labor standard laws, such as underpayment of wages, 13th month pay, non-payment of service incentive leave pay, and non-coverage of respondents under the Social Security System.

The petitioners on the other hand argued that the respondents are not they employees and refused to submit the payroll and daily time records to DOLE despite the subpoena decus tecum issued by the Regional Director.

Thereafter, the respondents were pressured by the petitioner’s by barring them to report to their work. Hence, the illegal dismissal was filed.

DOLE issued their order and certified the records of the case to NLRC if employer-employee relationship does exist. But respondents appealed the order to the secretary of labor.

The respondents filed an illegal dismissal, underpayment/non-payment of wages and benefits plus damages against petitioner. But it was dismissed by the Labor Arbiter.

On respondents appealed to NLRC for determination of the existence of employer-employee relationship, they submitted documents such as time cards, identification cards, payroll, a show cause order of the station manager to respondent Danny Oberio and memoranda either noted or issued by said manager.

ISSUES:

Did respondents violate the rule on forum shopping?

Whether the NLRC correctly ruled on the merits of the case instead of remanding the case to the Labor Arbiter.

Whether respondent’s were employees of petitioner.

Whether respondent’s dismissal was illegal.

RULING:

No because it is the law itself which provides for two separate remedies for their distinct causes of action. According to Article under Article 217 of the Labor Code, termination cases fall under the jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters.  Whereas, Article 128 of the same Code vests the Secretary of Labor or his duly authorized representatives with the power to inspect the employer’s records to determine and compel compliance with labor

standard laws.  The exercise of the said power by the Secretary or his duly authorized representatives is exclusive to cases where employer-employee relationship still exists.  Thus, in cases where the complaint for violation of labor standard laws preceded the termination of the employee and the filing of the illegal dismissal case, it would not be in consonance with justice to charge the complainants with engaging in forum shopping when the remedy available to them at the time their causes of action arose was to file separate cases before different fora. 

Yes, it must be stressed that labor tribunals are not bound by technical rules and the Court would sustain the expedient disposition of cases so long as the parties are not denied due process. Indeed, no such denial exists because it had all the opportunities to present evidence before the labor tribunals below, the Court of Appeals, and even before this Court, but chose not to do so for reasons which will not warrant the sacrifice of substantial justice over technicalities.   

Yes, the respondents passed the “four-fold test” on employer-employee relations, namely: (1) the selection and engagement of the employee, or the power to hire; (2) the payment of wages; (3) the power to dismiss; and (4) the power to control the employee.

Yes. In labor cases, the employer has the burden of proving that the dismissal was for a just cause; failure to show this would necessarily mean that the dismissal was unjustified and, therefore, illegal. In this case, the petitioner therefore failed to discharge its burden, hence, respondents were correctly declared to have been illegally dismissed.

Harborview Restaurant v. Labro, G. R. No. 168273, April 30, 2009

FACTS:

Respondent was a cook at the Harborview Restaurant until one day, he was informed by his co-employee as confirmed by the chief-cook and respondent’s brother who is an over-all supervisor at the restaurant that he indeed terminated because he allegedly steal a plastic bag of meat from the restaurant and gave it to the supplier. Respondent denied the accusation.

On the following week, respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with NLRC.

Petitioner argued that the respondent refused to go back into his work despite the letter sent to him to report, and if not, he would be deemed to have abandoned his work and be terminated. Thus, he abandoned his work. But respondent denied having received such letter from the petitioner.

The labor arbiter ruled in favor of respondent, however, NLRC reversed the ruling and held that there was no termination and illegal dismissal to speak of, that he abandoned his work.

On the petition file before the CA, in applying the case of Ranara v. NLRC, the appellate court held that in fact petitioner did dismiss respondent and did not observe due process in dismissing him.

Petitioner now sought for review of the CA ruling.

ISSUES:

Whether or not respondent deemed illegally dismissed by the respondent?

Whether application of Ranara case is not analogous to the case at bar.

RULING:

The Court is not persuaded that the respondent deemed abandoned his work. He is deemed illegally dismissed by the petitioner. It is a basic principle that in the dismissal of employees, the burden of proof rests upon the employer to show that the dismissal is for a just cause and failure to do so would necessarily mean that the dismissal is not justified. Petitioner failed to discharge the burden of proof that complainant was guilty of abandonment. It did not adduce any proof to show that petitioner clearly and unequivocally intended to abandon his job. It has been repeatedly stressed that for abandonment to be a valid cause for dismissal there must be a concurrence of intention to abandon and some overt act from which it may be inferred that the employee had no more interest to continue working in his job. An employee who forthwith takes steps to protest his layoff cannot by any logic be said to have abandoned his work. In addition, the filing of the complaint a few days after his alleged dismissal signified respondent’s desire to return to work, a factor which further militates against petitioner’s theory of abandonment.

The Court does not agree. To reiterate, central to petitioner’s case is its claim that respondent could not have been terminated because it was not the general manager who informed him of his alleged termination. This argument was already raised and ruled upon in Ranara.