Afterthought

In cases of termination of employment, the burden of proof rests on the employer to show that the dismissal is for a just cause, and when there is no showing of a clear, valid and legal cause for termination, the law considers it a case of illegal dismissal. This rule is illustrated in this case of Andy who charged his employer, German Machineries Corporation (GMC) with illegal dismissal.

According to Andy, he was employed by GMC on January 18, 1993 as a car painter with a salary of P8,000 a month for work performed from 7:30 a.m. to 5:15 p.m., Monday to Friday. He was performing well in his employment. But in March 1999 when he requested management to remit the SSS premium already deducted from his salary and subsequently complained to the SSS for non-payment and refusal by GMC to pay the said premiums, he became the object of harassment, shouted at and belittled. This treatment was punctuated by an incident on August 27, 1999 when he was tasked to paint the trusses of the newly constructed extension office of the company. Initially he refused to do so because it was not part of his job aside from his difficulty working in high places. Later on he consented but when he just went down to drink about 11:00 a.m. as he felt thirsty, the company President got irked and told him to get his separation pay and go home as he was already terminated.

Thus on August 30, 1999 Andy filed a complaint with the Department of Labor and Employment, NCR, charging GMC with illegal dismissal with the summons issued on September 13, 1999. But Andy said that even as he had already filed a complaint he tried to report for work on September 6, 1999 only to be handed a memorandum of even date calling his attention to his alleged bad working habits, absenteeism and insubordination. He also received on said date a purported suspension letter earlier dated August 27, 1999. Then he said he was told to just go home. Thereafter, he said he tried to report back to work but was told to stop reporting for work since his services were already terminated on August 27, 1999 although on September 28, 1999, his wife still received another memorandum asking him to explain why he had not reported for work.

But GMC had another version. It said that Andy was indeed performing well in the first years of his employment but starting July and August, 1999, he became lazy, inefficient, hardheaded, always absent and with a bad attitude towards co-employees and superior. GMC claimed that Andy was only suspended from work on August 27, 1999 for his acts of insubordination on August 23, 1999 when he did not follow the instruction of the Company President. And when he returned to work on September 6, 1999 after his suspension, he was observed to be working halfheartedly hence his attention was called in a memorandum issued on the same date; but after receiving the memo, he never reported for work according to GMC. And so, GMC said it sent another memo dated September 15, 1999 asking Andy to explain why he does not like to work and failing which he can be considered having abandoned his work. So GMC said that Andy was never dismissed; he was the one who voluntarily left the company after his attention was called by management to his inefficiency and bad working habits. Was Andy illegally dismissed or did he abandon his job?

Andy was illegally dismissed. The memorandum dated September 15, 1999 was simply an afterthought on the part of GMC. It must be noted that as early as August 30, 1999 Andy already filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and summons issued on September 13, 1999. In the same manner, the suspension letter dated August 27, 1999 and the memo of September 6, 1999 addressed to Andy were merely issued to justify his prior illegal dismissal. Aside from the letter dated August 27, 1999 which Andy received only on September 6, 1999, GMC failed to present proof that Andy was suspended prior to the filing of his complaint for illegal dismissal on August 30, 1999. If Andy was indeed suspended, there should have been a record of the proceedings taken by GMC to investigate the latter’s infractions before suspending him; or at least GMC should have handed out a memorandum, like the ones it subsequently issued, calling Andy’s attention to his shortcomings and directing him to explain his side. Hence there is no other conclusion than the fact that the suspension letter dated August 27, 1999 and the memos of September 6 and 15, 1999 were all issued as a means of validating the prior illegal dismissal of Andy. So Andy should be reinstated with full back wages (German Machineries Corp. vs. Endaya G.R. No. 156810 November 25, 2004).

* * *

E-mail at: [email protected]