photo credits: Google
In a recent development, Atty. John Rey B. Rodriguez, CPA, of Ericson and Rodriguez Law Offices, has issued a final demand for payment on behalf of Ribik Kibir Tortor and Aureliosa B. Jandayan, former employees of Camella Bohol Homeowners Association Inc. (CBHOAI).
The demand is in relation to NLRC Case No. VAC-09-000487-2022 (SRAB Case No. VII-01-011-2022-B), where the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) ruled in favor of the dismissed employees.
The decision, rendered by Labor Arbiter Bertino A. Ruaya, Jr. on April 29, 2022, declared the dismissal of the employees as illegal.
As per the ruling, CBHOAI is directed to pay the complainants an aggregate amount of P211,629.63, representing their separation pay, back wages, unpaid salaries, and attorney’s fees.
The case became final and executory on March 27, 2023.
However, due to the delay in the execution and receipt of the said award, an additional legal interest of 6% (P26,453.70 for 25 months) is also being demanded, bringing the total amount due to P238,083.33.
Atty. Rodriguez has demanded that this payment be made on or before May 29, 2024, either through cash or check in favor of the undersigned counsel.
Failure to comply with this demand may result in additional legal interest, other fees associated with the execution of the decision, and further legal action, Atty. Rodriguez said.
The letter ends with a note of trust that the Board of Directors will give this matter immediate attention.
The dismissed employees, Ribik K. Tortor and Aureliosa B. Jandayan, have expressed their conformity with the demand.
Earlier, NLRC found that the infractions committed by the complainants (Tortor and Jandayan) fell way below the required level of gravity that would warrant dismissal as a penalty.
The tribunal held that the dismissal of complainants failed to comply with the substantive and procedural aspects of due process.
NLRC said Camella Bohol Homeowners Association failed to observe both the substantive and procedural due process, in the termination of complainants’ employment. Thus, the imposed penalty of dismissal was declared as invalid.
In so ruling, the labor tribunal did not depreciate the infractions committed by complainants.
“Indeed, respondents had adequate reasons to impose sanctions on them. However, this should not be dismissal from employment. Because of the serious implications of this penalty, our Labor Code decrees that an employee cannot be dismissed, except for the most serious causes,” NLRC said.
The tribunal also found that respondents had failed to sufficiently discharge their burden in proving that complainants’ committed the infractions alleged and that if they did, the same can be considered as sufficient grounds for the termination of their employment.
The standard of substantial evidence is satisfied where the employer has reasonable ground to believe that the employee is responsible for the misconduct, and his participation therein renders him unworthy of the trust and confidence demanded by his position.
In the instant case, respondents failed to sufficiently establish the charges against complainants which was the basis for their loss of trust and confidence that warranted their dismissal.
In fine, the tribunal held that there is no just cause for complainants’ dismissal from the service.
NLRC said that while respondents underlined the supposed infractions of the complainants, it bears emphasis that at no time in the proceedings before the labor tribunal did respondents present sufficient proof that complainants alleged infractions amounted to loss of trust and confidence and serious misconduct.
The case highlights the importance of adhering to labor laws and the potential consequences of illegal dismissals, NLRC said.
“It serves as a reminder to all employers to respect the rights of their employees and to comply with legal obligations promptly,” the tribunal added.