July 2012 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[G.R. No. 201818 : July 04, 2012]
PABLITO O. YBARRITA v. NSP TRANSPORTATION SERVICES / NORMA SANTIAGO-PONEVIDA [OWNER]
G.R. No. 201818 (Pablito O. Ybarrita v. NSP Transportation Services / Norma Santiago-Ponevida [Owner]). - This is a Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari to annul the decision[1] dated January 30, 2012 and the resolution[2] dated April 30, 2012 or the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 121230 (docketed in the National Labor Relations Commission [NLRC] as LRC LAC No. 09-002276-10).
On May 4, 2002, petitioner Pablito Ybarrita started working as a driver for respondent NSP Transportation Services (NSP), a single proprietorship owned/managed by respondent Norma Santiago-Ponevida. On March 19, 2009, Ybarrita was allegedly dismissed without any written notice indicating the ground for his dismissal. On that day, the respondents refused to give him a bus assignment because he was asking for a "vale" from Mabel Duldulao, NSP's booking officer.
On March 24, 2009, Ybarrita reported for work, but again, he allegedly was not given a bus assignment, with Duldulao telling him to just wait. Four days later, he received an unsigned letter dated March 27, 2009 to report immediately to the NSP office. He reported on March 30, 2009, where Duldulao told him that only Ponevida could decide on the matter. He claimed that he did not go home and waited for Ponevida who arrived on April 2, 2009 and explained to him that he was not being dismissed. Ponevida told .him to wait for her text message about his assignment; he even obtained a "vale" of P300.00 from her. Despite Ponevida's assurance, he was not given an assignment, so he decided on June 9, 2009 to file a complaint for illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice against the respondents. He alleged that his dismissal was due to his active involvement in organizing a union (he was a union officer) in the transport firm. In the afternoon of June 9, 2009, he received a memorandum (through registered mail) stating that he was dismissed effective April 30, 2009 for his absences without leave.
In defense, the respondents alleged that Ybarrita was a charter driver. On March 6, 2009, he was assigned to drive for Pepsi-Cola (Pepsi) on a trip to Subic, Zambales, for four days with free meals and accommodations at Pepsi's expense. Ybarrita declined the assignment because he had no money at the time. NSP assigned the charter Trip to another driver using Ybarrita's . assigned bus (Kinglong). Without a bus assigned to him, Ybarrita had no work in the meantime; after a week, he was forced to ask NSP for a bus to drive. He was offered one, but he refused to drive it because it was not his old bus. He then left the NSP premises.
In the third week of March 2009, NSP called on Ybarrita for a driving assignment, but he was not available as he was doing carpentry work in his house. On March 27, 2009, he was required in writing to resume his work. He reported, but again insisted on driving Kinglong. Informed that this was not possible, he supposedly replied that he preferred to resign.
Labor Arbiter (LA) Jaime M. Reyno rendered a decision on March 15, 2010 dismissing the complaint for unfair labor practice, but found that Ybarrita had been illegally dismissed. LA Reyno awarded Ybarrita a total of P250,904.14 in backwages, separation pay, other monetary benefits and attorney's fees.
On appeal by the respondents, the NLRC modified the LA's decision, ruling that Ybarrita had not been illegally dismissed. It ordered him to return to work, without backwages and separation pay. The respondents were directed to accept Ybarrita back to work. With his motion for reconsideration denied, Ybarrita sought relief from the CA through a Rule 65 petition for certiorari.
In its decision of January 30, 2012, the CA granted the petition in part. It disagreed with the NLRC's conclusion that "neither the claim of abandonment by appellee nor the termination of employment by the appellant was clearly established."[3] The CA found that Ybarrita had abandoned his job when he refused to drive for a chartered trip to Subic because he had no money; when he persisted in refusing as he would not drive a bus unless it was his old bus Kinglong; and when he continued to refuse to continue working when he was told this was not possible.
The CA opined, however, that Ybarrita had not been given the opportunity to be heard when he was dismissed. It noted that the letter informing Ybarrita of his dismissal was dated April 30, 2009, the same date of effectivity of his separation due to abandonment.
The CA thus modified the appealed NLRC rulings, declaring that Ybarrita was dismissed for a valid cause, but awarded him P30,000.00 in nominal damages due to the respondents' non-compliance with procedural due process.
Ybarrita seeks a reversal of the assailed decision and resolution of the CA, contending that it committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling that he was validly dismissed, as the ruling is contrary to law and well-settled jurisprudence.
We deny the petition. We find that the CA committed no reversible error and neither did it commit grave abuse of discretion in resolving the case. The facts support the CA�s conclusion that Ybarrita was validly dismissed due to abandonment, although the respondents failed to afford him procedural due process as he was dismissed on the same day that his dismissal was to take effect; thus, the tward of nominal daages to Ybarrita.
In denying the petition, we find it significant that Ybarrita offered no argument against the respondents' submission that (1) he refused Pepsi's Subic chartered trip, for no other reason than that he had no money, when the charter was an all-expense-paid for trip; (2) he refused to drive if the bus would not be the one previously assigned to him; and (3) when he could not have his way, he signified his intention to resign.cralaw
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we find that the Court of Appeals committed no reversible error and, for this reason, we deny the petition. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON
Deputy Division Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo, pp. 31-41. Penned by Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier, and concurred in by Associate Justices Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando and Mario V. Lopez.[2] Id. at 43.
[3] Rollo, p. 64.
