Baron v.

EPE Transport
August 5, 2015
Perlas-Bernabe, J.
Digest by: Perry
*The case is found under Grievance Procedure but it talked more about
illegal dismissal. The only part of the case relevant to the topic is found in
the last paragraph of the Decision.
Facts:
The Respondent EPE Transport Corporation, is a domestic corporation
engaged in the operations of taxi units. The Petitioners were employed as
taxi drivers and were paid on boundary system. They [the Petitioners] were
members of the EPE Transport Drivers Union-FSM, the SEBA.
Sometime in August 2008, Bersabal inquired regarding the boundary rates
imposed and claimed that they were not in accordance with the CBA.
Instead of clarifying the matter, Bersabal was purportedly told that he was
free to go if he did not want to follow company policy. As a result, Bersabal,
with his other co-petitioners filed a complaint for violation of the CBA, ULP,
refund of overcharged boundary and money claims against the corporation
and its president.
Later, Baron and Melendres made the same inquiry and got the same
response. So they also filed a complain for ULP, etc. Baron claims that
three days later, he was prevented from entering EPEs premises and was
no longer allowed to use his taxi unit. The same fate was suffered by
Melendres and Bersabal. Therefore, another complaint was filed by the 3
petitioners, this time for illegal dismissal, ULP, separation pay.
The LA dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The LA gave more
credence to the claim of the respondents that the petitioners were the
ones who failed to return to work. Moreover, the LA said that it had no
jurisdiction over the ULP issue was the same was covered by the provisions
of the CBA which called for the operation of the grievance machinery in the
resolution of the dispute.
The NLRC reversed the LA and found that the petitioners have been
illegally dismissed. But this was reversed by the CA. Hence, this petition.
Issue/Held:
WON the CA gravely abused its discretion in reversing the ruling of the
NLRC and reinstating that of the LA. YES.
Ruling:

The SC held that the onus of proving that an employee was not dismissed,
or if dismissed, his dismissal was not illegal, fully rests on the employer;
the failure to discharge such ones would mean that the dismissal was not
justified and, therefore, illegal. Here, petitioners asserted that they were
unceremoniously dismissed after they charged respondents of violating the
CBA before the NLRC. Notably, respondents did not refute such absence
from work but averred that it was petitioners that went on AWOL and
abandoned their jobs after they filed their ULP complaint.
To justify abandonment, two elements must concur: (1) failure to report for
work or absence without valid or justifiable cause; and (b) clear intention to
sever the employer-employee relationship, with the second element as the
more determinative factor and being manifested by some overt acts.
In the case at bar, no proof was adduced by the respondents to prove their
theory of abandonment. Nothing would show that the petitioners absence
form work was deliberate and unjustified, with a clear intent to sever the
employment relationship. On the contrary, such intention is belied by the
fact that shortly after petitioners ceased from working, they immediately
instituted the complaint for illegal dismissal. An employee who forthwith
takes steps to protest his layoff cannot, as a general rule, be said to have
abandoned his work, for it is well-settled that the filing by an employee of a
complaint for illegal dismissal is proof enough of his desire to return to
work.
Moreover, the SC found that prior to the filing of the complaint for illegal
dismissal, the petitioner filed a complaint for violation of the CBA and ULP.
This bolsters the supposition that they actually desired to continue with
their employment as they were enforcing their rights under the CBA.
As to the issue of non-submission to the grievance machinery. The SC
clarified that submission to the grievance machinery would not in any way
disprove illegal dismissal. What was referred to the grievance machinery
was the ULP case and not the illegal dismissal case. It bears to note that
Article 223 (c) of the Labor Code, as amended, is explicit that the LA shall
refer to the grievance machinery and voluntary arbitration, as provided in
the CBA, those cases that involve the interpretation of said agreements.
Further, Article 272 of the same Code provides that all unresolved
grievances arising from the interpretation or implementation of the CBA,
including violations of said agreement, are under the original and exclusive
jurisdiction of the voluntary arbitrator or panel of voluntary arbitrators. As
such, petitioners cannot be faulted in invoking the grievance machinery
even after they had been dismissed in compliance with the provisions of
the CBA, to which they were bound.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED