G.R. No. 168273 ; April 30, 2009
HARBORVIEW RESTAURANT, Petitioner, vs. REYNALDO LABRO, Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Reynaldo Labro was a cook at Harborview Restaurant since August 1985. On January 29, 1999, upon reporting for work, he discovered that a co-employee, Salvador Buenaobra, had taken over his duties upon instructions from General Manager Demetrio Dizon. This was confirmed by the chief cook and respondent’s brother, the restaurant’s over-all supervisor, who told him to go home as there was no more work for him. The stated reason for his dismissal was an incident on January 20, 1999, where respondent allegedly took a plastic bag of ground meat from the kitchen and gave it to a supplier, as witnessed by two co-employees. Respondent denied this, claiming he took out a “throw away” bottle, witnessed by another co-employee. He left the premises. On February 5, 1999, he filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. Petitioner maintained it had not dismissed respondent, claiming he refused to work despite a letter dated February 8, 1999, instructing him to report immediately or be deemed to have abandoned his work. Respondent denied receiving this letter. The labor arbiter ruled in favor of respondent, finding illegal dismissal due to lack of proof of theft and failure to afford due process. The NLRC reversed this, finding no dismissal and that respondent had abandoned his work. The Court of Appeals granted respondent’s petition for certiorari, applying the case of Ranara v. NLRC, finding that petitioner intended to and did dismiss respondent through the verbal notices of termination by the chief cook and respondent’s brother, and that there was no indication of abandonment. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Reynaldo Labro was illegally dismissed by petitioner Harborview Restaurant.

RULING

Yes, respondent was illegally dismissed. The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that petitioner failed to discharge the burden of proving that respondent was guilty of abandonment, as there was no clear proof of respondent’s intention to abandon his job and an overt act showing such intent. The filing of the illegal dismissal complaint a week after the alleged dismissal signified his desire to return to work, negating abandonment. The Court also found that respondent had reason to believe the statements of his immediate superiors, the chief cook and the over-all supervisor (his brother), that he was terminated, and they likely had prior instruction or knowledge of the termination. The case of Ranara v. NLRC was deemed analogous, where an employee informed of dismissal by a company secretary (lacking apparent authority) was still found to have been dismissed, as the secretary would not have presumed to do so without authorization, and the immediate filing of a complaint negated abandonment. Similarly, here, the charge of abandonment was inconsistent with the prompt filing of the complaint. The Court also noted the lack of clear proof that respondent was instructed to submit to an investigation or that the February 8, 1999 letter was received.