[21] DIAMOND TAXI v. FELIPE LLAMAS JR.
RELEVANT PROVISION(S)
G.R. No. 190724; March 12, 2014; Brion, J.
FACTS
TOPIC: PREFERRED POSITION OF WORKERS’ RIGHTS IN LEGAL
HIERARCHY
SUMMARY
Llamas worked as a taxi driver for petitioner Diamond Taxi,
owned and operated by petitioner Bryan Ong. Llamas filed
before the Labor Arbiter (LA) a complaint for illegal dismissal
against the petitioners. the petitioners denied dismissing
Llamas. They claimed that Llamas had been absent without
official leave for several days, beginning July 14, 2005 until
August 1, 2005. The petitioners submitted a copy of the
attendance logbook to prove that Llamas had been absent on
these cited dates. They also pointed out that Llamas
committed several traffic violations in the years 2000-2005
and had issued him several memoranda for acts of
insubordination and refusal to heed management
instructions. They argued that these acts constitute grounds
for the termination of Llamas' employment. CA pointed out
that the petitioners failed to prove overt acts showing Llamas'
clear intention to abandon his job. On the contrary, the
petitioners placed Llamas in a situation where he was forced
to quit as his continued employment has been rendered
impossible, unreasonable or unlikely and noted that Llamas
immediately filed the illegal dismissal case that proved his
desire to return to work and negates the charge of
abandonment.
DOCTRINE
The dismissal of an employee’s appeal on purely technical
ground is inconsistent with the constitutional mandate on
protection to labor. The State is bound to protect labor and
assure the rights of workers to security of tenure.
 Felipe, a taxi driver for Diamond Taxi owned and operated by
Bryan Ong, filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the LA
on July 2005.
 Diamond claimed that they terminated his employment for just
grounds:
1. He had been absent without official leave for several
days from July 14, 2005-August 1, 2005;
2. Traffic violations;
3. Insubordination; and
4. Refusal to management instructions.
 LA
o Dismissed Felipe’s complaint and declared that he
was not dismissed but he left his job as he had been
absent for several days without leave.
o Llamas claims that he had a misunderstanding with
Aljuver Ong (Bryan’s brother and operations
manager) on July 13, 2005
o The following day, Bryan refused to give him the key
to his assigned taxi unless he signed a resignation
letter. He did not sign the resignation letter. He went
back to work on July 15 and 16 but he was asked
again to sign the resignation letter before the keys
could be released.
 NLRC
o LA treated MR as appeal to NLRC but it was
dismissed for failure to attach certification of non-
forum shopping; He filed MR again but was denied.
 CA
o Set aside NLRC resolution.
o Petitioners failed to prove overt acts showing Felipe’s
intention to abandon his job and put him in a situation
where he was forced to quit as his continued
employment has been rendered impossible.
 o Diamond’s acts amounted to constructive [2] Whether Felipe abandoned his work or had been
dismissal. constructively dismissed. – CONSTRUCTIVELY DISMISSED
o His filing of the illegal dismissal case proves desire to  To constitute abandonment of work, two elements must
return and negates charge of abandonment. concur:
o Granted Felipe separation pay. 1. The employee must have failed to report for work or
must have been absent without valid or justifiable
ISSUE(S)/HELD
reason; and
2. There must have been a clear intention (on the part
[1] WoN NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing
of the employee) to sever the employer-employee
Llamas’ appeal on mere technicality. – YES
relationship manifested by some overt act.
 Llamas did not file a memorandum of appeal from the LA’s
 Petitioners unerringly failed to prove the alleged
decision but a motion for reconsideration which is not allowed
abandonment. They did not present proof of some overt act of
for LA’s decisions. MR however, may be treated as an appeal
Llamas that clearly and unequivocally shows his intention to
 He failed to attached his certification of non-forum shopping abandon his job.
which would have justified an end to the case BUT a careful
 Abandonment is the deliberate and unjustified refusal of an
consideration of the circumstances show that the NLRC
employee to resume his employment. It is a form of neglect of
should have given due course to Llamas’ appeal.
duty that constitutes just cause for the employer to dismiss the
o Llamas had to hire a new counsel because his former
employee.
counsel failed to submit (despite his please) to submit
his position paper to the LA. RULING
 NLRC should have relaxed the application of procedural rules The CA, therefore, correctly regarded Llamas as
in the broader interests of substantial justice. constructively dismissed for the petitioners' failure to prove the
o Rules of procedure are mere tools designed to alleged just cause -abandonment- for his dismissal.
facilitate the attainment of justice. A strict and rigid Constructive dismissal exists when there is cessation of work
application which would result in technicalities that because continued employment is rendered impossible,
tend to frustrate rather than promote substantial unreasonable or unlikely. Constructive dismissal is a
justice should not be allowed. dismissal in disguise or an act amounting to dismissal but
o We should remember that the dismissal of an made to appear as if it were not.
employee’s appeal on purely technical ground is
inconsistent with the constitutional mandate on DISPOSITIVE: Petition DENIED. CA decision AFFIRMED.
protection to labor.
o Under the Constitution and the Labor Code, the State
is bound to protect labor and assure the rights of
workers to security of tenure – tenurial security
being a preferred constitutional right that, under
these fundamental guidelines, technical
infirmities in labor pleadings cannot defeat.