In Philippine labor law, employees bear the initial responsibility of proving they were dismissed before employers must justify the dismissal. This ruling clarifies that a mere allegation of illegal dismissal is insufficient; substantial evidence is required. This protects employers from unfounded claims while ensuring employees can pursue legitimate grievances with adequate proof.

When Absence Isn’t Abandonment: Seeking Clarity on Employment Termination

Tri-C General Services, a manpower agency, faced an illegal dismissal complaint from three employees, Nolasco Matuto, Romeo Magno, and Elvira Laviña, who claimed they were terminated after a labor dispute. The company countered that the employees were placed on “floating status” due to a client’s cost-cutting measures and later abandoned their posts after failing to respond to notices to report to the main office. The Labor Arbiter (LA) and the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) initially ruled in favor of Tri-C, but the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed this decision, declaring the employees were illegally dismissed and ordering their reinstatement with backwages. This led to the Supreme Court review to determine whether the employees were indeed illegally dismissed and whether the CA erred in its ruling.

The Supreme Court emphasized that while employers have the burden of proving that a termination was for a valid or authorized cause, employees must first establish the fact of their dismissal with substantial evidence. Citing Noblejas v. Italian Maritime Academy Phils., Inc., the Court reiterated this fair evidentiary rule, stating that the onus lies on the employee to present a prima facie case of dismissal before the employer is burdened to prove the legality of the action. The court found that the employees in this case failed to provide sufficient proof of dismissal. According to the court, their assertions and joint affidavit were not enough without corroborating evidence, such as the alleged termination notice.

Moreover, the Supreme Court noted that the employees did not demonstrate that they were barred from the company premises or denied work assignments. Instead, the employer presented evidence showing that the employees were repeatedly asked to report to the main office, which they ignored. This failure to report, despite multiple notices, weakened their claim of illegal dismissal. The Court highlighted that the burden of proof on the employer only arises once the employee has successfully established that a dismissal occurred.

The High Court referenced the principle established in Tan Brothers Corporation of Basilan City v. Escudero which states that allegations without supporting evidence hold no weight. It was also mentioned that the evidence must be clear, positive and convincing. In this case, the Supreme Court found no such evidence to support the claim of illegal dismissal. Conversely, the Court gave more weight to the employer’s documented attempts to contact the employees and their subsequent failure to respond. This was seen as a critical factor in disproving the employees’ claim.

Regarding the issue of reinstatement and backwages, the Supreme Court cited Article 279 of the Labor Code, which provides that an employee unjustly dismissed is entitled to reinstatement and backwages. However, since the Court determined that the employees were not illegally dismissed, they were not entitled to backwages. Despite finding no illegal dismissal or abandonment, the Supreme Court ruled that the employees were entitled to reinstatement, but without backwages. This decision was based on the principle of “no work, no pay,” which states that an employee should not be compensated for work not performed.

In relation to attorney’s fees, the Supreme Court referenced Article 111 of the Labor Code, which allows for attorney’s fees in cases of unlawful withholding of wages. However, since the employees were not illegally dismissed, and their wages were not unlawfully withheld, they were not entitled to attorney’s fees. The Court stated that attorney’s fees are justifiable only when an employee is forced to litigate to protect their rights due to the employer’s unlawful actions.

The Supreme Court weighed the circumstances of the case, emphasizing that the employer should accept the employees back into their former positions. This was based on the absence of evidence indicating a strained relationship between the parties. The Court clarified that the doctrine of strained relations should not be applied indiscriminately to bar reinstatement, especially when the employee has not shown aversion to returning to work and does not hold a position of trust and confidence. As the Court emphasized, in Leopard Security and Investigation Agency v. Quitoy et al., the doctrine of strained relations is an exception rather than the rule.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the employees were illegally dismissed by Tri-C General Services, and whether they were entitled to reinstatement, backwages, and attorney’s fees. The Supreme Court focused on whether the employees sufficiently proved the fact of their dismissal.
What evidence did the employees present to prove their dismissal?	The employees primarily relied on their assertions and a joint affidavit, claiming they were barred from their workplace. They did not provide the alleged termination notice or any other corroborating evidence to substantiate their claim.
What evidence did the employer present?	Tri-C presented evidence showing that the employees were repeatedly summoned to report to the main office for possible reassignment. They also showed that PLDT-Laguna informed petitioner that it would implement cost-cutting measures and that it would discontinue the services of respondents.
What is the “floating status” of an employee?	“Floating status” refers to a situation where an employee is temporarily out of work due to circumstances such as the completion of a project or lack of available assignments. The employer has a reasonable time to find a new assignment for the employee.
What is the principle of “no work, no pay”?	The principle of “no work, no pay” states that an employee is not entitled to compensation for work not performed. The Supreme Court applied this principle by denying backwages to the employees since they had not worked during the period in question.
Why were the employees not awarded attorney’s fees?	The employees were not awarded attorney’s fees because the Supreme Court found that they were not illegally dismissed, and their wages were not unlawfully withheld. Attorney’s fees are typically awarded when an employee is forced to litigate to protect their rights due to the employer’s illegal actions.
What does reinstatement mean in this context?	Reinstatement means that the employer is required to restore the employees to their former positions without loss of seniority rights. However, in this case, the reinstatement was ordered without the payment of backwages.
What is the doctrine of strained relations, and why wasn’t it applied here?	The doctrine of strained relations allows an employer to avoid reinstating an employee if the relationship between them has become so damaged that reinstatement is not feasible. The Court did not apply the doctrine because the employer did not demonstrate the existense of a strained relationship.

This case underscores the importance of employees gathering substantial evidence to support claims of illegal dismissal. While employers bear the ultimate burden of proving just cause for termination, employees must first establish the fact of dismissal with clear and convincing proof. In this instance, the employees’ failure to provide sufficient evidence led to a partial reversal, highlighting the crucial role of documentation and corroboration in labor disputes.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: TRI-C GENERAL SERVICES VS. NOLASCO B. MATUTO, ET AL., G.R. No. 194686, September 23, 2015