REMEDIOS A. HABAL, PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND EGM ENTERPRISES AND/OR EDGARDO GO MUNDO, RESPONDENTS.
REYES, JR., J.C., J.:
a) The NLRC (Fifth Division) Decision (Rollo, pp. 88-97) dated August 23, 2012 which Denied the appeal of petitioner;
b) The Resolution (Rollo, pp. 63-65) dated September 28, 2012 which denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration likewise issued by public respondent NLRC (Fifth Division) in NLRC NCR Case No. 10-14999-11; NLRC LAC No. 05001401-12.
The facts:
The case arose from an amended complaint filed by petitioner Remedios Habal against private respondents EGM Enterprises (EGM) and its Owner Edgardo Go Mundo for illegal dismissal, non- payment of overtime pay, non-payment of 13th month pay, illegal deduction, payment of separation pay and attorney’s fees.
Petitioner alleged that Edgardo Go Mundo is the Owner of EGM, a business entity engaged in the distribution of diesel and Rebisco biscuits. Sometime in 2006, she was hired by private respondents as a “Cashier” for the diesel business and as a “Checker” for the Rebisco business. She worked from Monday to Saturday (8:00 pm to 8:00 am) with a salary of P7,000.00.
Petitioner claimed that for almost five (5) years, she served the private respondents with honesty, sincerity and loyalty. However, on February 28, 2011, she was suddenly relieved from the job on the basis that she has no more work to do. She was forced to sell food or viands while waiting for the private respondents to give her work. She allegedly waited for six (6) months but private respondents were still unable to find her a position in the company. Hence, she instituted this complaint.
On the other hand, private respondents denied dismissing the petitioner and claimed that they hired petitioner for almost five years and the petitioner had acquired expertise in rendering services for them. Sometime in February 2011, petitioner abandoned her job. Thus, they exerted all efforts to persuade petitioner to return to work but it was the latter who refused to return to her work for the reason that she operated a food store. Petitioner was also frequently seen gambling with some colleagues.
Private respondents further alleged that after petitioner’s food store became bankrupt, she went to Edgardo Go Mundo to ask for capital but the latter refused. It was petitioner’s decision to leave the company and run a food stall. There being no actual or constructive dismissal, private respondents are not obliged to pay full backwages and separation pay. However, private respondents acknowledged that petitioner has not received her proportionate 13th month pay as she never returned back to work. Private respondents also showed cash vouchers to prove that petitioner was paid her salaries and wages from 2008, 2009 and 2010.
On March 26, 2012, Labor Arbiter Jonalyn Martinez Gutierrez rendered her decision in favor of the private respondents. The dispositive portion of the Decision states:
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, The complaint for illegal dismissal is hereby dismissed for failure of complainant to substantiate her claim. Respondent EGM enterprise or Edgardo Go Mundo is hereby ordered to pay complainant her proportionate 13th month Pay (12,000 X2/12)
Other claims are hereby dismissed for lack of substantial basis.
SO ORDERED.” (Rollo, p. 61)
On April 20, 2012, petitioner filed an appeal. On August 23, 2012, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) issued the appealed decision affirming the Labor Arbiter’s decision. The dispositive portion of the NLRC decision states:
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, complainant’s Appeal is DENIED for lack of merit. The Decision of Labor Arbiter Jonalyn Martinez Gutierrez dated March 26, 2012 is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.” (Rollo, p. 96)
Hence, this petition with the following assigned errors:
I.
WHETHER THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN AFFIRMING THE LABOR ARBITER’S DECISION.
II.
WHETHER THE PETITIONER WAS ILLEGALLY DISMISSED FROM EMPLOYMENT.
The petition is without merit.
In a special civil action for certiorari, the petitioner carries the burden of proving not merely reversible error, but grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the public respondent for its issuance of the impugned decision. (Suliguin v. Commission on Elections, 485 SCRA 219, 233 [2006]) The term grave abuse of discretion, in its juridical sense, connotes capricious, despotic, oppressive or whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse must be of such degree as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and capricious manner by reason of passion and hostility. The word capricious, usually used in tandem with the term arbitrary, conveys the notion of willful and unreasoning action. Thus, when seeking the corrective hand of certiorari, a clear showing of caprice and arbitrariness in the exercise of discretion is imperative. (Torres v. Abundo, Sr., 512 SCRA 564, 565 [2007])
Applying the foregoing criterion in the case at bench, this court finds no grave abuse of discretion committed by the public respondent.
Petitioner mainly contends that the NLRC erred when it affirmed the decision of the Labor Arbiter and dismissed her appeal. She argued that she did not abandon her work and she was illegally dismissed by private respondents. She further claimed that it is the employer who has the burden of proving that the dismissal is for a just cause.
On the contrary, private respondents argue that they did not terminate the employer-employee relationship with petitioner. Private respondents assert that petitioner abandoned her job when it decided to run a food store, thus, she is not entitled to an award of separation pay and backwages.
While we recognize the rule that in illegal dismissal cases, the employer bears the burden of proving that the termination was for a valid or authorized cause, in the present case, however, the facts and the evidence do not establish a prima facie case that the employee was dismissed from employment. Before the employer must bear the burden of proving that the dismissal was legal, the employee must first establish by substantial evidence the fact of his dismissal from service. If there is no dismissal, then there can be no question as to the legality or illegality thereof. (Philippine Rural Reconstruction Movement v. Pulgar, 623 SCRA 244, 256 [2010])
Also, the rule is that one who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it; thus, petitioner was burdened to prove her allegation that private respondents dismissed her from her employment. It must be stressed that the evidence to prove this fact must be clear, positive and convincing. (Machica v. Roosevelt Services Center, Inc., 489 SCRA 534, 544-545 [2006]) The rule that the employer bears the burden of proof in illegal dismissal cases finds no application here because the private respondents denied having dismissed the petitioner.
In this case, other than petitioner’s self-serving and unverified narration of facts of having been verbally terminated from her work, there was no evidence presented to show that she was indeed dismissed from work or was prevented from returning to her work. In the absence of any evidence of an overt act proving that private respondents had dismissed petitioner, the latter’s claim of illegal dismissal cannot be given merit.
The Labor Arbiter aptly ruled that the acts of petitioner were inconsistent with the alleged illegal dismissal. The decision states:
“Complainant’s allegation that she was illegally dismissal (sic) is inconsistent to her actuations. If she was really dismissed on 28 February 2011, she could have easily instituted a complaint and not wait for ten months to elapse. If it was true that she was promised to be given a position, then after the six month period, she could have instituted a complaint as constructive dismissal has already ripened. Also, if indeed she desperate to cling to her job, she would have asked for reinstatement as a relief and not separation pay, considering that there appears to be no basis of her alleged ‘strained relations’. All these contemporaneous acts of complainant such as filing the complaint of illegal dismissal only after ten (10) months that she was dismissed, setting up a food store or carinderia during her alleged floating status, rejecting the offer of reinstatement, and asking to be paid separation pay, belies her claim that she was illegally dismissed.
It is noted that during the mandatory conference, complainant asked P150,000.00 as a financial assistance to amicably settle her complaint. In fact respondent were gregarious enough to offer her work again and in addition give her financial assistance in the amount of P10,000.00 but complainant declined such offer.” (Rollo, p. 60)
Furthermore, considering that petitioner basically presented an issue of fact, its petition for certiorari crumbles in view of the identical findings of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC. Well settled is the rule that factual findings of quasi-judicial agencies such as the Labor Arbiter and NLRC are generally accorded not only respect, but at times, even finality because of the special knowledge and expertise gained by these agencies from handling matters falling under their specialized jurisdiction. (Eureka Personnel & Management Services, Inc. v. Valencia, 593 SCRA 36, 44 [2009]).
It is axiomatic that absent any clear showing of abuse, arbitrariness or capriciousness, the findings of fact by the Labor Arbiter and NLRC, as in this case, are binding and conclusive upon the Court. Having found none, the Court finds no cogent reason to deviate from the challenged decision.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition is hereby DISMISSED. The NLRC Decision dated August 23, 2012 and Resolution dated September 28, 2012 likewise issued by public respondent NLRC (Fifth Division) in NLRC NCR Case No. 10-14999-11; NLRC LAC No. 05001401-12 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Lopez, M.V., and Inting, S.B., JJ., concur.