04 Diamond Taxi v. Llamas Jr.

G.R. No. 190724 (March 12, 2014)

Brion, J. / kam

Subject Matter: Jurisdiction of the NLRC > Factual findings

Summary: Felipe Llamas Jr. filed an illegal dismissal case against petitioners Diamond Taxi and/or Bryan Ong. Petitioners
claimed abandonment on the part of Llamas, while Llamas alleged that he was constructively dismissed. Llamas, due to his
former counsel’s fault, failed to seasonably file a position paper with the Labor Arbiter (LA). Thus, when LA ruled in favor of
the petitioners, it had not received Llamas’ position paper yet. Llamas filed an MR which was treated as an appeal with the
NLRC. For failing to include a certification of non-forum shopping, the NLRC dismissed Llamas’ appeal. Despite including the
non-forum shopping certificate in his MR, Llamas’ MR was still denied by the NLRC.

CA reversed the NLRC ruling and held that NLRC ruled with grave abuse of discretion when it dismissed Llamas’ appeal purely
due to technical grounds. This issue was elevated to this court, with the petitioners arguing that the CA encroached on the
NLRC’s exclusive jurisdiction to review the merits of the LA’s decision. SC held that while courts accord great respect and
finality to factual findings of administrative agencies (like the NLRC), this doctrine does not preclude the courts from reviewing
these findings of facts when shown that the administrative body committed grave abuse of discretion. Petition DENIED. CA
decision AFFIRMED.

Doctrine: Courts generally accord great respect and finality to factual findings of administrative agencies, i.e., labor tribunals,
in the exercise of their quasi-judicial function. These findings, however, are not infallible. This doctrine espousing comity to
administrative findings of facts cannot preclude the courts from reviewing and, when proper, disregarding these
findings of facts when shown that the administrative body committed grave abuse of discretion by capriciously,
whimsically or arbitrarily disregarding evidence or circumstances of considerable importance that are crucial or decisive of the
controversy.

Parties:
Petitioners Diamond Taxi and/or Bryan Ong
Respondent Felipe Llamas, Jr.

Facts:
 Felipe Llamas, Jr. (Llamas) filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against the petitioners on July 18, 2005.
o Petitioners’ position paper claimed that Llamas had been absent without official leave from July 14 to August
1, 2005. Petitioners submitted a copy of the attendance logbook. They also argued that Llamas’ traffic
violations, insubordination, and refusal to heed management instructions constitute grounds for the
termination of his employment. [They claimed to have issued several memoranda to Llamas due to
insubordination & refusal to heed instructions. Other than that, no official charge.]
o Llamas failed to seasonably file his position paper.

Labor Arbiter (LA) – On Nov. 29, 2005, LA ruled in favor of petitioners. Llamas was not dismissed, legally or illegally. He left
his job and had been absent for several days without leave. Llamas received this order on Jan. 5, 2006.
 Llamas filed his position paper on Dec. 20, 2005 and claimed that his previous counsel has continuously deferred
compliance with the LA’s orders to submit a position paper, despite Llamas’ repeated pleas. He was forced to get a new
counsel in order to comply (despite being late).
o Llamas’ side: He had a misunderstanding with Aljuver Ong, Bryan’s brother and operations manager of
Diamond Taxi on July 13, 2005. The next day, July 13, Bryan refused to give him the key to his assigned taxi cab
unless he signed a prepared resignation letter. Same thing happened on July 15 and 16. Thus, he filed the
illegal dismissal complaint.
 Llamas filed an MR on Jan. 16, 2005. Since one can’t file an MR with the LA, this was treated as an appeal to the NLRC
(filed w/in 10 days from receipt of order).

NLRC – Dismissed the appeal because Llamas failed to attach the required certification of non-forum shopping (Because he
really did not file it as an appeal, only as an MR. Non-forum shopping cert. is only required for appeals.)
 Llamas moved to reconsider and attached the required certification of non-forum shopping in his MR.
 MR denied.

Court of Appeals (CA) – Reversed the NLRC ruling. Non-compliance with the requirement on the filing of a certificate of non-
forum shopping, while mandatory, may nonetheless be excused upon showing of manifest equitable grounds proving
substantial compliance.
  Petitioners failed to prove overt acts showing Llamas’ clear intention to abandon his job. Petitioners’ act amounted to
a constructive dismissal.
 CA noted that Llamas immediately filed the illegal dismissal case which proved his desire to return to work and
negates the charge of abandonment. Also, petitioners failed to charge Llamas with the mentioned infractions
(insubordination, etc), so they could not use those as supporting grounds for the dismissal.
 NLRC had acted with grave abuse of discretion when it dismissed Llamas’ appeal purely on a technicality. Diamond
Taxi was ordered to pay Llamas separation pay, full backwages and other benefits due the latter from the time of the
dismissal up to the finality of the decision. Separation pay in lieu of reinstatement was ordered, because of the
resulting strained work relationship.

Issues:
1. [RELATED TO TOPIC] WON CA encroached on the NLRC’s exclusive jurisdiction to review the merits of the LA’s
decision? (NO)
2. WON the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing Llamas’ appeal on mere technicality? (YES)
3. WON Llamas was constructively dismissed? (YES)

Ratio:

1. On the factual-issue-bar-rule:
 SC: We examine the CA decision in the context that it determined the presence or the absence of grave abuse
of discretion in the NLRC decision before it and not on the basis of whether the NLRC decision, on the merits
of the case, was correct. We have to be keenly aware that the CA undertook a Rule 65 review, not a review on
appeal, of the challenged NLRC decision. In question form, the question that we ask is: Did the CA correctly
determine whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling on the case?
 Whether the CA, in ruling on the labor case before it under an original certiorari action (Rule 65), can make its
own factual determination?

The CA has ample authority to make its own factual determination.

 Petitioners: The CA should have limited its action in determining whether grave abuse of discretion attended
the NLRC’s dismissal of Llamas’ appeal; finding that it did, the CA should have remanded the case to the NLRC
for further proceedings.
 SC: While that would have been a prudent approach, the CA’s action on this case was not procedurally wrong
and was not without legal and jurisprudential basis.

 In this jurisdiction, courts generally accord great respect and finality to factual findings of administrative
agencies, i.e., labor tribunals, in the exercise of their quasi-judicial function. These findings, however, are not
infallible. This doctrine espousing comity to administrative findings of facts cannot preclude the courts from
reviewing and, when proper, disregarding these findings of facts when shown that the administrative body
committed grave abuse of discretion by capriciously, whimsically or arbitrarily disregarding evidence or
circumstances of considerable importance that are crucial or decisive of the controversy.
 Hence, in labor cases elevated to it via petition for certiorari, the CA can grant this prerogative writ when it
finds that the NLRC acted with grave abuse of discretion in arriving at its factual conclusions. To make this
finding, the CA necessarily has to view the evidence if only to determine if the NLRC ruling had basis in
evidence. The CA may resolve factual issues by express legal mandate and pursuant to its equity jurisdiction.

2. Ordinarily, the infirmity in Llamas’ appeal would have been fatal and would have justified an end to the case. A careful
consideration of the circumstances of the case, however, convinces us that the NLRC should, indeed, have given due
course to Llamas’ appeal despite the initial absence of the required certificate. We note that in his MR of the NLRC
decision, Llamas attached the required certificate of non-forum shopping. Also, Llamas adequately explained, in his
MR, the inadvertence and presented a clear justifiable ground to warrant the relaxation of the rules. (His former
counsel despite his pleas failed to submit position paper thus he was not given the chance to argue his side.)

Ultimately, what should guide judicial action is that a party is given the fullest opportunity to establish the merits of his
action or defense rather than for him to lose life, honor, or property on mere technicalities. Then, too, we should remember
that “the dismissal of an employee’s appeal on purely technical ground is inconsistent with the constitutional mandate on
protection to labor.”

In this case, Llamas’ action against the petitioners concerned his job, his security of tenure. This is a property right of
which he could not and should not be deprived of without due process. But, more importantly, it is a right that assumes a
preferred position in our legal hierarchy.
 3. Llamas did not abandon his work; he was constructively dismissed.
 “Abandonment is the deliberate and unjustified refusal of an employee to resume his employment.” It is a form of
neglect of duty that constitutes just cause for the employer to dismiss the employee.
 To constitute abandonment of work, two elements must concur:
(1) the employee must have failed to report for work or must have been absent without valid or justifiable reason; and
(2) there must have been a clear intention [on the part of the employee] to sever the employer-employee relationship
manifested by some overt act.

To successfully invoke abandonment, whether as a ground for dismissing an employee or as a defense, the employer
bears the burden of proving the employee’s unjustified refusal to resume his employment. Mere absence of the employee is not
enough.
Application to the case: Petitioners unerringly failed to prove the alleged abandonment. They did not present proof of some
overt act of Llamas that clearly and unequivocally shows his intention to abandon his job. Aside from their bare allegation, the
only evidence that the petitioners submitted to prove abandonment were the photocopy of their attendance logbook and the
July 15, 2005 memorandum that they served on Llamas regarding the July 13 incident.

These pieces of evidence, even when considered collectively, indeed failed to prove the clear and unequivocal
intention, on Llamas’ part, that the law requires to deem as abandonment Llamas’ absence from work. Moreover, and as the CA
pointed out, Llamas lost no time in filing the illegal dismissal case against them. To recall, he filed the complaint on July 18,
2005 or only two days from the third time he was refused access to his assigned taxi cab on July 16.

In sum, the CA correctly found equitable grounds to warrant relaxation of the rule on perfection of appeal (filing of the
certificate of non- forum shopping) as there was patently absent sufficient proof for the charge of abandonment. Accordingly,
we find the CA legally correct in reversing and setting aside the NLRC’s resolution rendered in grave abuse of discretion.

Dispositive: Petition DENIED. CA decision AFFIRMED.