Case
Case
LORINA RAÑESES
GR No. 191825, October 5, 2016
Leonardo-De Castro, J.
FACTS:
Dee Jay’s Inn and Café (DJIC), was owned and managed by Melinda Ferraris. Moonyeen Bura-ay is a cashier with
a monthly salary of P3000.
Respondent, Rañeses filed in the SSS office against petitioner for non-remittance of SSS contributions, in the
Nat’l Labor Relations (NLRC) Arbitration Unit for underpayment/nonpayment of wages, overtime pay, holiday pay,
service incentive leave pay, and 13th month pay.
Respondent averred that she asked for her share in the SSS contributions and overtime pay for the 11 hours of
work per day in DJIC. Petitioner got infuriated and told her to seek another employment. Respondent then filed a complaint and
upon learning it, petitioner fired her. Respondent submitted the Joint Affidavit of Mercy and Mea to corroborate her
allegations.
Petitioner countered that she did not fired respondent and Moonyeen. Sometime in 2005, there was a shortage of
P400 so she talked with the two. But she got infuriated and scolded them. Thereafter, they walked out did not report from
work anymore. She submitted the affidavit of Eva, another employee to support her version.
NLRC: no credence to the charge of illegal dismissal but claim for 13 th month pay is granted.
CA: Burden of proof is on the employer to show the employee’s clear and deliberate intent to discontinue his employment
w/o any intention of returning.
If doubts exist between the evidence presented by the employer and employee, resolved in favor of employee.
In favor of the petitioner. They are illegally dismissed.
Issue:
1. W/N the decision lacked factual proof and also ignored established jurisprudence.
2. W/N the cause of action included in the position paper and not in the complaint can be given effect.
3. W/N the respondent was illegally dismissed.
Ratio:
1. No. Respondent filed her complaint in January 2005 and the 2002 NLRC Rules of Procedure was still in effect. The
Revised Rules of Procedure of NLRC only took effect on January 7, 2006.
2. Yes. In the 2002 NLRC Rules of Procedure, the parties could allege and present evidence to prove any causes of
action included, not only in the complaint, but also in the position papers. Cause of action should be ascertained not
from a reading of his complaint alone but also from the consideration and evaluation of both his complaint and position
paper. Furthermore, respondent cannot include her charge of illegal dismissal complaint because she filed it in January
2005 and got fired only in February 5, 2005.
3. No. In illegal dismissal cases, the burden of proof is on the employer to prove that the dismissal was indeed
valid. But before the employer bear such burden, the employee must first establish substantial evidence that they are
indeed dismissed. (If there’s no dismissal there’s no illegal dismissal)
In the case at bar, Labor arbiter, NLRC, and even the CA, all found that respondent was not able to present
substantial evidence of her dismissal. They all rejected the Joint Affidavit of Mercy and Mea, for being partial and
biased.
Since respondent was unable to establish with substantial evidence her dismissal, the burden of proof did not
shift to petitioners to prove that her dismissal was for just or authorized cause.
(She merely stated that the two never returned to work. Didn’t argue that they abandoned it)
As pointed out by petitioner, they never raised abandonment as defense as there was no dismissal in the first
place. Abandonment refers to the deliberate and unjustified refusal of an employee to resume his employment. It is a
form of neglect of duty that constitutes just cause for the employer to dismiss the employee. Without any dismissal
action on the part of the employer, valid or not, no burden to prove just or authorized cases arises.
Ruling:
CA ruling REVERSED and SET ASIDE. NLRC decision REINSTATED with MODIFICATION, DJIC and Ferraris pay
respondent separation pay.