CAPILI vs. NLRC 1997 Mar 26; G.R. No. 117378
BELLOSILLO, J.:
Respondents Respondents Benigno Santos, Delfn Yuson, Yuson, Luisito Santos, Ursino Basister, Ricardo Reyes, Reyes, Joselito Santos, Jorge Binuya and Nicolas Mulingbayan are licensed drivers o public utility eepneys plying t!e Libertad"Sta# $ru% route in Manila# &!e eepneys 'ere or(erly or(erly o'ned by petitioner )il $apili# *or t!e use o t!e eepney or t'elve !ours a driver 'ould pay rent or so"called so "called +boundary+ o -./#// and earn a net proft o -//#// per day# 0n 1 May 2332, at a ti(e '!en petitioner Ricardo $apili ointly 'it! !is 'ie !ad assu(ed o'ners!ip and operation o t!e eepneys driven by private respondents, t!e latter and t!e ot!er drivers si(ilarly situated 'ere re4uired by t!e eepney operators to sign individually contracts o lease o t!e eepneys to or(ali%e or(ali%e t!eir lessor"lessee lessor"lessee relations!ip# relations!ip# 5o'ever, !aving gat!ered t!e i(pression i(pression t!at t!e signing o t!e contracts o lease 'as a condition precedent beore beore t!ey could continue driving or petitioners, all t!e drivers stopped plying t!eir assigned routes beginning 1 May 2332# 6 'ee7 later or on 28 May 2332 t!e drivers, nu(bering t'enty"t'o 9--:, fled a co(plaint or illegal dis(issal beore t!e Labor 6rbiter praying not or reinstate(ent but or separation pay# 2 ;n t!e interi(, ourteen 928: o t!e co(plainants desisted and resu(ed plying t!eir routes# &!e re(aining eig!t 9.: co(plainants 'it! t!eir rec7oning dates o e(ploy(ent ollo'< 9a: Benigno Santos, 231-= 9b: Jorge Binuya, 23>?= 9c: Luisito Santos, 23.-= 9d: Delfn Yuson, Yuson, 23.@= 9e: Ursino Basister, 23./= 9: Ricardo Reyes, 23.?= 9g: Joselito Santos, 23.3= and, 9!: Nicolas Mulingbayan, 231.# etitioners etitioners opposed t!e clai( o private respondents beore t!e Labor 6rbiter alleging t!at t!e latter voluntarily abandoned t!eir respective obs 'it!out any valid cause and t!ereater reused and still continue to reuse to return to 'or7 despite repeated de(ands andAor notices given to t!e( to return to 'or7# ;n resolving t!e dispute, t!e Labor 6rbiter ruled 0n t!e issue o dis(issal versus abandon(ent, 'e are inclined to believe t!at t!e latter scenario !appened# ;t is not sound business practice to dis(iss (any e(ployees at t!e sa(e ti(e since it 'ould cripple t!e operations# !at 'as (ore li7ely 'as t!at t!e drivers, all -- o t!e( # # # boycotted respondents on May 1, 2332 by not reporting or 'or7 on t!at day#
C
*ro( t!e vie'point o co(plainants, t!eir signing o t!e lease contract 'as a condition sine 4ua non to t!e continuous driving o t!eir respective drivers 9eepneysE:# But ro( t!e point o vie' o respondent $apili and as s!o'n in t!e aore4uoted paragrap! ? o !is aFdavit, and as urt!er s!o'n in t!e notices 9G!ibits +@"B+ and +@"B"2+: '!ic! (erely as7ed co(plainants to return to 'or7 'it!out (entioning any condition li7e t!e signing o t!e contract, t!e signing o t!e lease contract by t!e drivers 'as (erely intended as a confr(ation o t!e original concept o a no e(ployer" e(ployee relations!ip, and to strea(line t!e operation by indicating t!e a(ount o t!e boundary per driver, depending on t!e nu(ber o !ours t!ey drive and t!eir obligation to c!ec7 on t!e (otorAengine, oil, tires, bra7es and ot!er routinary re4uire(ents in order to insure t!e ve!iclesH road'ort!iness# ;t 'as never (eant to be t!at i a driver reuses to sign t!e contract, !e 'ould not be allo'ed to continue driving# &o our (ind, bot! parties (isappreciated t!e situation# RespondentsH erroneous insistence o a no e(ployer"e(ployee relations!ip even in t!e ace o a 'ell"establis!ed contrary doctrine as postulated in t!e Dinglasan case - 93. !il# >83: and co(plainantsH erroneous appre!ension o t!e loss o suc! e(ployer"e(ployee relations!ip i t!ey sign t!e lease contract propelled t!e co(plainants to fle t!e instant co(plaint# ;n s!ort, t!is is (erely a si(ple case o (isunderstanding# &o re(edy t!e situation, 'e eel t!at t!e (ost prudent approac! 'ould be to let t!e parties return to t!e relations!ip t!at eisted bet'een t!e( prior to May 1, 2332# @ &!e Labor 6rbiter t!us concluded 5GRG*0RG, decision is !ereby rendered declaring t!e brea7age 9sic:, o relations!ip bet'een respondent Ricardo $apili and co(plainants Benigno &# Santos, Delfn Yuson, Luisito Santos, Ursino Basister, Ricardo Reyes, Joselito Santos, Jorge Binuya and Nic!olas Mulingbayan, as a product o (isunderstanding and (isappreciation o t!e situation by bot! parties and, t!ereore, respondents are !ereby directed to reinstate t!e( to t!eir or(er position 'it!out loss o seniority rig!ts and ot!er benefts, but 'it!out bac7 'ages 9p# 1, 6nne +*+:# 8 rivate respondents appealed to t!e National Labor Relations $o((ission# &!ey reiterated t!eir prayer or separation pay e4uivalent to one 92: (ont! salary or every year o service and, in addition, t!ree 9@: years bac7 'ages#
Respondent NLR$ up!eld t!e fnding o t!e Labor 6rbiter t!at t!e case arose due to si(ple (isunderstanding bet'een t!e co(plaining drivers on one !and and t!eir e(ployers on t!e ot!er# 5o'ever, it too7 eception to t!e relie granted to private respondents and (odifed t!e appealed decision accordingly by !olding t!at Since t!ere 'as (isunderstanding bet'een t!e parties and t!is (isunderstanding resulted in ani(osity and strained relations!ip bet'een t!e(, 'e dee( it proper and (ost prudent approac! to (aintain industrial peace or respondents to pay t!e co(plainants t!eir separation pay o one !al 92A-: (ont! or every year o service, based on t!eir daily earnings o -//#//# ? &!e petitioners (oved to !ave t!e above dis4uisition o respondent NLR$ reconsidered but t!e latter denied t!e (otion# &!ey no' co(e to us arguing t!at since t!ere 'as a clear fnding o abandon(ent by t!e Labor 6rbiter consisting in t!e ailure o private respondents to report or 'or7 'it!out ustifable reason, t!e a'ard o separation pay could not be 'arranted# &!e NLR$ brus!ed aside t!e argu(ents o petitioners# ;t e(p!asi%ed t!at i it 'ere t!e fnding o t!e Labor 6rbiter t!at private respondents 'ere guilty o abandon(ent !e 'ould not !ave ordered reinstate(ent but dis(issal o t!e case# &!us on 3 6ugust 2338 NLR$ denied reconsideration# etitioners i(pute grave abuse o discretion on t!e part o respondent NLR$ in a'arding separation pay to private respondents# e agree 'it! petitioners# &!e legal basis or t!e a'ard o separation pay is clearly provided by 6rt# -13 o t!e Labor $ode '!ic! states t!at t!e re(edy or illegal dis(issal is reinstate(ent 'it!out loss o seniority rig!ts plus bac7 'ages co(puted ro( t!e ti(e co(pensation 'as 'it!!eld up to reinstate(ent# 5o'ever t!ere (ay be instances '!ere reinstate(ent is not a viable re(edy as '!ere t!e relations bet'een e(ployer and e(ployee !ave been so severely strained t!at it is no longer advisable to order reinstate(ent or '!ere t!e e(ployee decides not to be reinstated# ;n suc! events, t!e e(ployer 'ill instead be ordered to pay separation pay# > 6 reading o 6rt# -13 in relation to 6rt# -.- o t!e Labor $ode reveals t!at an e(ployee '!o is dis(issed or cause ater appropriate proceedings in co(pliance 'it! t!e due process re4uire(ents is not entitled to an a'ard o separation pay# Under 6rts# -.@ and -.8 o t!e sa(e $ode, separation pay is aut!ori%ed only in cases o dis(issals due to any o t!ese reasons< 9a: installation o labor saving devices= 9b: redundancy= 9c: retrenc!(ent= 9d: cessation o t!e e(ployerHs business, and, 9e: '!en t!e e(ployee is suIering ro( a disease and !is continued e(ploy(ent is pro!ibited by la'
or is preudicial to !is !ealt! and to t!e !ealt! o !is co"e(ployees# 1 5o'ever, separation pay s!all be allo'ed as a (easure o social ustice in t!ose cases '!ere t!e e(ployee is validly dis(issed or causes ot!er t!an serious (isconduct or t!ose reecting on !is (oral c!aracter, but only '!en !e 'as illegally dis(issed# &!e co((on deno(inator o t!ose instances '!ere pay(ent o separation pay is 'arranted is t!at t!e e(ployee 'as dis(issed by t!e e(ployer# ;n t!e instant case t!ere 'as no dis(issal at all# Respondent NLR$ aFr(ed t!e actual fndings o t!e Labor 6rbiter t!at t!ere 'as only a (isunderstanding bet'een petitioners and private respondents '!ic! caused t!e latter to stop reporting or 'or7# ; t!e Labor 6rbiter ordered reinstate(ent it s!ould not be construed as relie proceeding ro( illegal dis(issal= instead, it s!ould be considered as a declaration or aFr(ation t!at private respondents (ay return to 'or7 because t!ey 'ere not dis(issed in t!e frst place, and t!ey s!ould be !appy t!at t!eir e(ployers are accepting t!e( bac7# &!is could be t!e reason '!y co(plainants as7ed only or separation pay not or reinstate(ent in t!eir co(plaint beore t!e Labor 6rbiter# &!e a'ard o separation pay cannot be ustifed solely because o t!e eistence o +strained relations+ bet'een t!e e(ployer and t!e e(ployee# ;t (ust be given to t!e e(ployee only as an alternative to reinstate(ent e(anating ro( illegal dis(issal# !en t!ere is no illegal dis(issal, even i t!e relations are strained, separation pay !as no legal basis# Besides, t!e doctrine on +strained relations+ cannot be applied indiscri(inately since every labor dispute al(ost invariably results in +strained relations=+ ot!er'ise, reinstate(ent can never be possible si(ply because so(e !ostility is engendered bet'een t!e parties as a result o t!eir disagree(ent# &!at is !u(an nature# . &!e constitutional policy o providing ull protection to labor is not intended to oppress or destroy (anage(ent# &!e co((it(ent o t!is $ourt to t!e cause o labor does not prevent us ro( sustaining t!e e(ployer '!en it is in t!e rig!t, as in t!is case# 3 !en respondents fled t!eir co(plaint, and ta7ing account o t!e allegations t!erein, t!ey oreclosed reinstate(ent as a relie, since t!ey prayed only or an a'ard o separation pay# &!is is confr(ed in t!eir appeal to t!e NLR$ '!ere t!ey prayed or a (odifcation o t!e decision o t!e Labor 6rbiter, ro( reinstate(ent 'it!out bac7 'ages to pay(ent o t!ree 9@: years bac7 'ages and separation pay e4uivalent to one 92: (ont! salary or every year o service# 2/ ;t is t!ereore clear t!at respondents never desired to be reinstated# &!is being so, t!e $ourt cannot order t!e( to return to 'or7# 22 ; private respondents voluntarily c!ose not to return to 'or7 any(ore t!ey (ust be considered as !aving resigned ro( t!eir
e(ploy(ent# &!is is 'it!out preudice !o'ever to t!e 'illingness o bot! parties to continue 'it! t!eir or(er contract o e(ploy(ent or enter into a ne' one '!enever t!ey so desire# 5GRG*0RG, t!e petition is )R6N&GD and t!e e(ployer"e(ployee relations!ip bet'een petitioners on one !and and eac! private respondent on t!e ot!er is dee(ed voluntarily ter(inated# $onse4uently, t!e decision o respondent National Labor Relations $o((ission dated -. *ebruary 2338 is RGKGRSGD and SG& 6S;DG# S0 0RDGRGD# adilla, Kitug, apunan and 5er(osisi(a, Jr#, JJ#, concur#
