ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 157534.
UNIVAN vs. CA
THIRD DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this
Court dated
G.R. No. 157534 ( Univan Management Services Philippines, Inc. vs. Honorable Court of Appeals, National Labor Relations Commission and Renato Marcelo.)
Before this Court is a petition for review on certiorari seeking
the reversal of the decision
[1]
cralaw
of the Court of Appeals dated
The generative facts of the case are as follows:
Respondent Renato Marcelo was hired by petitioner on
For its part, petitioner denied dismissing respondent from
employment. Petitioner maintained that it received a letter from the officers
and crew members enumerating the various infractions committed by respondent,
ranging from disrespect to gross misbehavior and incompetence. Petitioner
issued a memorandum dated
On
Aggrieved by the decision of the NLRC, petitioner filed a
petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals. On
Petitioner moved for a reconsideration of the decision but the
same was denied by the Court of Appeals in its resolution dated
Hence, this petition.
It is axiomatic that, in illegal dismissal cases, the employer
always has the burden of proof and his failure to discharge this duty results
in a finding that the dismissal is unjustified.
[3]
cralaw
In the present case, petitioner failed to substantiate its claim that
respondent had been legally dismissed. Petitioner mainly relies on the
certification dated
Petitioner's allegation that respondent voluntarily resigned from work does not deserve any consideration. Resignation is defined as the voluntary act of an employee who finds himself in a situation where he believes that personal reasons cannot be sacrificed in favor of the exigency of the service and that he has no other choice but to disassociate himself from his employment. Respondent's acts as found by the appellate court clearly indicated that he had no intention of relinquishing his position as chief cook of MV Eurasian Chariot.
Petitioner utterly failed to discharge its burden by the requisite quantum of evidence. Therefore, it being clearly established that respondent was illegally dismissed, the decision of the appellate court is correct. Respondent is entitled to his salary for three months pursuant to Section 10 (5) of RA 8042 (Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995) which provides that a worker dismissed from overseas employment without just, valid or authorized cause is entitled to his salary for the unexpired portion of his employment contract or three months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less. In the instant case, the unexpired portion of respondent's contract was nine months. Hence, he is entitled to receive only an amount equivalent to three months of his basic salary.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.)JULIETA V. CARREON
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Penned by Associate Justice Edgardo P. Cruz, concurred in by Associate Justices Oswaldo D. Agcaoili and Danilo B. Pine, Special Thirteenth Division.
[2] cralaw Penned by Commissioner Vicente E. Veloso, concurred in by Presiding Commissioner Roy V. Se�eres and Commissioner Alberto R. Quimpo, First Division.
[3] cralaw Caurdanetaan Piece Workers' Union vs. Laguesma, 286 SCRA 401 [1998].
[4] cralaw Anino vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 290 SCRA 489 [1998].
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH