Photo from Pexels | MART PRODUCTION
The following post does not create a lawyer-client relationship between Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices (or any of its lawyers) and the reader. It is still best for you to engage the services of a lawyer or you may directly contact and consult Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices to address your specific legal concerns, if there is any.
Also, the matters contained in the following were written in accordance with the law, rules, and jurisprudence prevailing at the time of writing and posting, and do not include any future developments on the subject matter under discussion.
AT A GLANCE:
As an employee, Villarico is entitled to the payment of the annual 13th month pay under Presidential Decree No. 851, as amended. However, since he filed his Complaint only on August 30, 2016, only those 13th month pay not paid by DMCI, et al. from 2014 to 2016 can be claimed.
Petitioner Joy M. Villarico was first hired by respondent D.M. Consunji, Inc. (DMCI) as a laborer on November 8, 2007. He was assigned to different projects throughout the years, the last of which was as a crane operator at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA) Expressway Project in March 2016. On March 30, 2016, Villarico was informed by DMCI that he was being suspended for four (4) days due to a violation of company policy.
When Villarico returned to work, he was asked by the site administrator, Miguelito Chua, to sign a document similar to a notice of explanation, but he refused. He was then told by
Chua that he will be considered absent without leave for four (4) days and that his termination will be sent to him via courier. This prompted Villarico to seek assistance from the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), leading to a series of conciliation conferences between him and DMCI, et al.
In the meantime, DMCI placed Villarico on floating status for two (2) months. Subsequently, Villarico was required by DMCI to undergo a medical examination. When he failed the drug test component, he was told to return for confirmatory testing after one month.
Villarico filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and payment of monetary benefits against DMCI, et al., alleging that he returned several times to DMCI as instructed, but he was never
informed of the result of his confirmatory testing.
The Labor Arbiter dismissed Villarico’s complaint, finding that Villarico was a project employee whose employment was for a predetermined duration. According to the Labor Arbiter, there was no illegal dismissal since Villarico was not dismissed in the first place, but that his contract simply expired.
In its Resolution, the NLRC denied Villarico’s appeal. It agreed with the Labor Arbiter’s ruling. Villarico then filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA), which was dismissed. The CA affirmed in toto the ruling of the NLRC, prompting Villarico to file a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court.
The Court held that Villarico was a regular employee. Nevertheless, Villarico was not illegally dismissed since his service was terminated for a just cause. However, DMCI did not observe the requirements of due process in terminating Villarico’s employment. As such, DMCI was liable to pay Villarico nominal damages in the amount of PhP30,000.00. The Court granted Villarico’s prayer for payment of his 13th month pay and service incentive leave pay for 2007 to 2016.
Hence, these Motions for Partial Reconsideration filed by Villarico and DMCI, et al.
The issue in this case is whether or not DMCI, et al.’s failure to observe the twin-notice requirement entitles Villarico to payment of damages, notwithstanding the existence of just cause for his dismissal.
The Supreme Court Decides
The Supreme Court denied with finality the Motion for Partial Reconsideration filed by Villarico. Meanwhile, the Motion for Partial Reconsideration filed by DMCI and Madeline B. Gacutan is partly granted.
The use of illegal drugs qualifies as a serious misconduct, which is one of the just causes for termination under Article 297 of the Labor Code. Since Villarico was dismissed for a just
cause, DMCI, et al.’s failure to observe the twin-notice requirement entitles him to payment of
nominal damages in the amount of PhP30,000.00.
With respect to the award of service incentive leave pay and 13th month pay, some of the claims of Villarico had already prescribed at the time he filed his Complaint pursuant to Article Article 306 of the Labor Code. Since he filed his complaint only on August 30, 2016, only those 13th month pay not paid by DMCI, et al. from 2014 to 2016 can be claimed.
Since Villarico filed his Complaint for illegal dismissal on August 30, 2016, or barely two (2) months since he was dismissed in June 2016, his claim for service incentive leave pay was filed
within the three-year prescriptive period under Article 306 of the Labor Code. Consequently, he is entitled to payment of service incentive leave pay during the entire period of his employment, or from 2007 to 2016.
Source:
JOY M. VILLARICO VS. D.M. CONSUNJI, INC. AND MADELINE B. GACUTAN (G.R. No. 255602 | March 3, 2025)
Click here to subscribe to our newsletter
Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries regarding legal services, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/ 09175772207/ 09778050020.
All rights reserved.