Reinstatement Rights in Illegal Dismissal Cases: Trust, Tenure, and Abandonment

When an employee claims to have been illegally dismissed, the law protects the worker's right to security of tenure. But that protection is not automatic. The Supreme Court's decision in Mehitabel, Inc. v. Alcuizar (G.R. Nos. 228701-02, December 13, 2017) shows how a claim of illegal dismissal can fail when the evidence does not support it — and how an employee's own conduct can amount to abandonment of work.

The case matters because it addresses a common employment dispute: an employee insists he was fired, while the employer insists he walked away. The Court's ruling explains how that conflict is resolved and what an employee must prove before the employer is required to justify a dismissal.

The facts of the case

Mehitabel, Inc. hired Jufhel Alcuizar as Purchasing Manager in August 2010. His supervisor began receiving complaints about his work performance beginning March 2011. The company claimed his poor performance caused production delays and lost clientele. He was counselled to improve, but complaints continued.

On August 10, 2011, Alcuizar allegedly left the office during working hours, telling the HR officer and a security guard that he was quitting. The company sent him a letter by registered mail directing him to return to work and explain why he should not be disciplined for abandonment. He neither returned nor explained. Instead, the company received summons for an illegal dismissal complaint.

Alcuizar claimed he was verbally told on August 9, 2011 that his services were no longer needed, and that the company had published job openings for his position. The company countered that the published vacancy was for Purchasing Officer, not Purchasing Manager, and that the postings contained a typographical error.

What the labor tribunals and the Court of Appeals ruled

The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint, finding that Alcuizar failed to prove he was dismissed. The National Labor Relations Commission reversed, holding that while there was a just cause for dismissal, the company failed to observe due process, entitling Alcuizar to nominal damages.

The Court of Appeals then reversed the NLRC. It declared Alcuizar illegally dismissed, ordered his reinstatement with full backwages, and awarded attorney's fees. The appellate court applied Article 4 of the Labor Code, which directs that doubts in the implementation and interpretation of labor laws be resolved in favor of labor.

The Supreme Court's ruling

The Supreme Court granted the company's petition and reinstated the Labor Arbiter's dismissal of the complaint.

The Court held that Alcuizar failed to establish the fact of dismissal. It applied the principle that the burden of proof lies with the one who alleges, not the one who denies. In illegal termination cases, the employee must first show positive and overt acts of the employer indicating an intention to dismiss before the burden shifts to the employer to prove the dismissal was legal. Alcuizar's claim that he was told to turn over his functions to a new manager remained a bare assertion.

The published job postings did not persuade the Court. It found more credible the company's explanation that the advertisements contained an error and that the actual vacancy was for Purchasing Officer. The HR officer's affidavit admitted the mistake, and Alcuizar had been informed of it.

More importantly, the Court found that Alcuizar abandoned his employment. The company had issued a Return to Work order, which he received but ignored. That directive showed the company still considered him an employee. His failure to comply signified his intention to sever the employment relationship, and it corroborated the testimonies of the HR officer and security guard.

The Court also clarified that filing an illegal dismissal complaint does not automatically prove the employee did not abandon his post. All circumstances must be considered. It cited Basay v. Hacienda Consolacion (G.R. No. 175532, April 19, 2010) for this point.

Finally, the Court noted that Alcuizar's slothful work attitude fell within gross and habitual neglect of duty, a ground for termination under Article 297(b) of the Labor Code.

Why reinstatement was not ordered

Because there was no dismissal to speak of, there was no illegal dismissal to remedy. Reinstatement, backwages, and attorney's fees are consequences of an illegal dismissal. Since the Court found that Alcuizar abandoned his work rather than being dismissed, those reliefs had no basis. The ruling underscores that reinstatement rights arise only after an illegal dismissal is established.

Practical takeaways

• The employee carries the initial burden of proving dismissal by substantial evidence. Bare allegations are not enough.
• A Return to Work order that the employee ignores can support a finding of abandonment.
• Filing an illegal dismissal complaint does not, by itself, prove that the employee was dismissed.
• Poor work performance and habitual neglect can justify termination under Article 297(b) of the Labor Code.
• Reinstatement and backwages depend on first establishing that an illegal dismissal occurred.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.