GROUP 6:

OLIVA, Anna Lorraine; PANGILINAN, Ann Domenique; RAFANAN, Charles Bill; RAMOS, Ayleen

NAVARRO v P.V. PAJARILLO LINER, INC.

G.R. NO. 164681; APRIL 24, 2009
THIRD DIVISION, J. AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ

FACTS:

PV Pajarillo Liner, Inc employed Bernardino Navarro as a bus driver. Sometime in

March 1996, Navarro was apprehended for picking up passengers in a non-loading zone along
Ayala Avenue. Navarro’s license was confiscated and he was issued a traffic violation receipt
(TVR) by a MMDA officer. Navarro gave the TVR to the operations manager of Pajarillo Liner.
The latter was unable to redeem Navarro’s license but was able to secure a 2 month extension for
the validity of the TVR. Sometime in May 1996, Navarro was again apprehended along
Shoemart Makati. The record does not specify the violation. When his driver’s license was
demanded by the Makati highway patrol operatives, Navarro presented his TVR. The operatives
ordered Navarro to drive the bus directly to the garage. After the incident, Navarro was not able
to work for Pajarillo Liner again.

Navarro filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the Labor Arbiter (LA). He argued
that Pajarillo Liner’s refusal to redeem his license constituted constructive dismissal. For its part,
Pajarillo Liner argues that it was Navarro who has the obligation to redeem his driver’s license
and his inaction to get back the license showed his lack of interest in resuming his job.

The LA rendered a decision in favor of Navarro. The LA said that Pajarillo Liner’s claim
of Navarro’s negligence due to his prolonged absences had been well explained. Said absences
could never be attributed to Navarro’s fault, since he could not perform his usual duties as a
driver without his license, and Navarro was not remiss in following up the release of his license
from Pajarillo Liner, which did not do its job. On appeal, the NLRC agreed with the LA that
there was constructive dismissal. However, it ruled that it was incumbent upon Navarro to
redeem his license, as it was necessary in the pursuit of his occupation as a bus driver. The
NLRC ordered that Navarro should be reinstated upon presentation of his driver's license, but without
backwages considering that he was equally at fault, as he did not bother to take proper steps to redeem his
license.

On appeal, the CA found that while an award of backwages presupposes a finding of

illegal dismissal, not every case of illegal dismissal deserves an award of backwages. The CA
further held that Navarro was the holder of the confiscated driver's license; thus, it was his duty
to redeem his license; that while Pajarillo Liner previously took care of retrieving a confiscated
driver's license, it was only a matter of accommodation, as there is no law or regulation making it
an obligation of the employer to undertake retrieval of its erring driver's license.

Hence, this petition.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Navarro should be entitled to backwages.

RATIO:

No.

When Navarro was again caught in May 1996, he was using the extended TVR. Navarro
claimed that he gave the extended TVR to Pajarillo Liner for the latter to redeem the same.
However, such claim was belied by Navarro’s letter-reply to Pajarillo Liner’s letter asking him
to explain his prolonged absence. There, Navarro wrote that the extended TVR was stolen from
him. Thus, how could Navarro expect Pajarillo Liner to redeem his driver's license when the
extended TVR was not in the Pajarillo Liner’s possession? Pajarillo Liner could not be
reasonably expected to redeem Navarro’s driver's license while he, as owner of the license, did
not take the proper steps to report the loss of the TVR to get back his license.

Consequently, the Court agrees with the NLRC's conclusion that Navarro is not entitled
to backwages. He never bothered to redeem his license at the soonest possible time when there
was no showing that he was unlawfully prevented by Pajarillo Liner from doing so. Where the
failure of employees to work was not due to the employer's fault, the burden of economic loss
suffered by the employees should not be shifted to the employer. Each party must bear his own
loss. It would be unfair to allow Navarro to recover something he has not earned and could not
have earned, since he could not discharge his work as a driver without his driver's license.

The age-old rule governing the relation between labor and capital, or management and
employee, of a "fair day's wage for a fair day's labor" remains as the basic factor in determining
employees' wages. If there is no work performed by the employee, there can be no wage or pay --
unless, of course, the laborer was able, willing and ready to work but was illegally locked out,
suspended or dismissed, or otherwise illegally prevented from working, a situation which we
find is not present in the instant case.

WHEREFORE, the petition for review is DENIED.

COMMENT:

We agree that Navarro in this case was remiss in his obligation to redeem his own
license. However, for future reference, we are of the opinion that there should be a law
mandating bus companies to be responsible for the redemption of the license of their drivers,
subject to the right of bus companies to recover from said drivers any expenses they might incur
during the process. This is to afford a greater help to our bus drivers who, more often than not,
are working on a tight budget and do not have other sources of income.