CA finds Corominas Bus Company guilty of illegal dismissal

CEBU, Philippines - The Court of Appeals has ordered the management of Corominas Bus Company to pay the back wages, separation pay, and other benefits of a driver illegally dismissed from service five years ago.

Associate justice Carmelita Salandanan-Manahan of the Court of Appeals-Cebu station ruled that Buenaventura Gesman was illegally terminated contrary to the company’s claim that it was the driver who did not report back to work after his suspension for alleged reckless driving.

The appellate court also did not believe the claim of Josefina Corominas, owner of the bus company, that Gesman was a reckless driver.

“We find Corominas’ allegation in the Memorandum/Show Cause Letter that petitioner has been recklessly driving the bus highly improbable for he has been working with the company since 1997 without any derogatory record. Clearly, the alleged violations of petitioner as claimed by respondent, were unsubstantiated, thus, would not be justifiable cause for petitioner’s dismissal,” the decision read.

Gesman started his employment as driver of Corominas Bus Company in 1997 under the ownership of the late Andres Corominas. Gesman was assigned to Bus No. 41 plying Cebu City-Tuburan-Cebu City route. However, after Andres died, the business was inherited by his heirs including Andrea Therese Corominas, who inherited Bus No. 41. Andrea Therese was then represented by her guardian, Josefina.

Due to the change of management, Gesman asked Josefina regarding his retirement and separation pay in respect to his service with the previous owner. However, Josefina allegedly got irked. From then on, Josefina had been hostile towards Gesman.

In the first week of March 2009, Gesman said he encountered several flat tires while plying his route and requested for new tires but rejected. Gesman said he told Josefina to contact him once the new tires are available but his bus was given to another driver.

On March 14, 2009, he was issued with a memorandum suspending him for being an alleged reckless driver and was ordered to report on March 16 for investigation.

Believing that he could no longer get back to work, Gesman instead filed a complaint before the Labor Arbiter for unfair labor practice and for payment of his services with the company.

Josefina denied illegally dismissing Gesman. According to her, she only learned that Gesman already filed a complaint before the Department of Labor and Employment. But despite the complaint, Gesman was allegedly asked to report on May 6, 2009.

Gesman reportedly decline because of poor sight but offered to settle the case if he will be paid one half of his monthly salary for every year of service. Gesman eventually won the case at the labor arbiter. He was granted P208,820 as back wages, separation pay, service incentive leave pay, and attorney’s fee.

The arbiter’s decision, however, was reversed by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).

But the appellate court said the NLRC erred in reversing the findings of the labor arbiter.

 â€œIn this case, the offer to return to work was only made at the time when the case was already filed with the Labor Arbiter. Respondent could have done so at the time when petitioner reported back to work. Clearly, the offer was a mere afterthought purposely done to spare respondent company from the damages claimed by petitioner,” the decision read. (FREEMAN)