G. R. No.
207888, June 9, 2014 by IMAPI for the same position and continued to
Noblejas vs. Italian Maritime Academy Phils.
Facts:
Italian Maritime was a training center for
seamen and an assessment center for
determination of the qualifications and competency
of seamen and officers for possible promotion.
Italian Maritime President, wrote a Letter to
Noblejas informing him that he had been appointed
as training instructor/assessor of the company on a
contractual basis for a period of three (3) months.
After the expiration of the 3-month period, Italian
Maritime hired Noblejas again but no written
contract was drawn for his rehiring.
The absence of a written contract to cover
the renewal of his employment became Noblejas’
major concern. To address all his apprehensions,
he wrote a letter requesting that a new contract be
executed to reflect the following provisions that they
had allegedly agreed upon. Likewise, in the same
letter, Noblejas intimated that he was electing to
continue working for the company as its regular
instructor.
Noblejas averred that the company did not
act on his letter-request, so he sought an audience
with the President. During the meeting, an
altercation between them ensued. After such
incident, he was dimissed.
The LA declared Noblejas to be illegally
dismissed and concluded that he was a regular
employee. The NLRC reversed the LA decision.
The NLRC explained that there was no showing
that respondents committed any positive and overt
act of dismissal and that the claim of Noblejas that
the President ordered his secretary to terminate his
employment was not substantiated. According to
the NLRC, it was Noblejas who severed his
employment. On appeal, the CA upheld the findings
of the NLRC that Noblejas was a contractual
employee of IMAPI and that there was no evidence
to prove that he was dismissed from employment.
Issue:
Whether or not Noblejas is a regular
employee.
Ruling:
Yes. In the case at bench, Noblejas was
employed by IMAPI as a training
instructor/assessor for a period of three (3) months.
After the end of the 3-month period, he was rehired
work as such.
There is no dispute that the work of
Noblejas was necessary or desirable in the
business or trade of IMAPI, a training and
assessment center for seamen and officers of
vessels. Moreover, such continuing need for his
services is sufficient evidence of the necessity and
indispensability of his services to IMAPI’s business.
Taken in this light, Noblejas had indeed
attained the status of a regular employee at the
time he ceased to report for work.
Issue:
Whether or not Noblejas was illegally
dismissed.
Ruling:
Fair evidentiary rule dictates that before
employers are burdened to prove that they did not
commit illegal dismissal, it is incumbent upon the
employee to first establish by substantial evidence
the fact of his or her dismissal.
Aside from his mere assertion, no
corroborative and competent evidence was
adduced by Noblejas to substantiate his claim that
he was dismissed from employment. The record is
bereft of any indication that he was prevented from
returning to work or otherwise deprived of any work
assignment. It is also noted that no evidence was
submitted to show that respondent Ferrez, the
secretary of Capt. Terrei, was actually authorized
by IMAPI to terminate the employment of the
company’s employees or that Ferrez was indeed
instructed by Capt. Terrei to dismiss him from
employment.
The Court finds it odd that, instead of
clarifying from Capt. Terrei what he heard from
Ferrez, Noblejas immediately instituted an illegal
dismissal case against the respondents the day
following the alleged incident and never reported
back for work since then. Complainant’s allegation
that he was dismissed from employment cannot be
accorded credence for it is obvious that being
unhappy with not being granted his demands, it
was he himself who is no longer interested to
continue his employment with respondent
company.
Respondents’ refusal to grant complainant’s
demands does not constitute an overt act of
dismissal. On the contrary, it is rather the apparent
disinterest of complainant to continue his
employment with respondent company that may be
considered a covert act that severed his
employment when the latter did not grant the litany
of his demands.