Scribd
Upload
196 views2 pages

Diamond Taxi V Llamas Digest

Felipe Llamas, a taxi driver for Diamond Taxi, filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the labor arbitrator (LA) after Diamond Taxi terminated his employment in July 2005. Diamond Taxi claimed Felipe was absent without leave for several days and had traffic violations and was insubordinate. The LA dismissed Felipe's complaint, finding he left his job voluntarily. However, the Court of Appeals set aside the LA's decision, finding that Diamond Taxi's actions in refusing to release Felipe's taxi without signing a resignation letter amounted to constructive dismissal. The court also found the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing Felipe's appeal based on a technicality rather than considering the circumstances of the case.

Uploaded by

Dawn Bernabe
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
196 views2 pages

Diamond Taxi V Llamas Digest

Felipe Llamas, a taxi driver for Diamond Taxi, filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the labor arbitrator (LA) after Diamond Taxi terminated his employment in July 2005. Diamond Taxi claimed Felipe was absent without leave for several days and had traffic violations and was insubordinate. The LA dismissed Felipe's complaint, finding he left his job voluntarily. However, the Court of Appeals set aside the LA's decision, finding that Diamond Taxi's actions in refusing to release Felipe's taxi without signing a resignation letter amounted to constructive dismissal. The court also found the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing Felipe's appeal based on a technicality rather than considering the circumstances of the case.

Uploaded by

Dawn Bernabe
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Diamond Taxi and/or Bryan Ong v. Felipe Llamas, Jr.

FACTS

Felipe, a taxi driver for Diamond Taxi owned and operated by Bryan Ong filed
a complaint for illegal dismissal with the LA (July 2005)
Diamond claimed that they terminated his employment for just grounds:
o he had been absent without official leave for several days from July
14, 2005 August 1, 2005
o Traffic violations
o Insubordination
o Refusal to management instructions
LA
o
o

dismissed Felipes complaint and declared that he was not dismissed


but he left his job as he had been absent for several days without leave
Llamas claims that he had a misunderstanding with Aljuver Ong
(Bryans brother and operations manager) on July 13, 2005 and the
following day, Bryan refused to give him the key to his assigned taxi
unless he signed a resignation letter. He did not sign the resignation
letter. He went back to work on July 15 and 16 but he was asked again
to sign the resignation letter before the keys could be released

NLRC
o LA treated MR as appeal to NLRC but it was dismissed for failure
to attach certification of non-forum shopping; He filed MR again
but was denied.
CA
o Set aside NLRC resolution
o Petitioners failed to prove overt acts showing Felipes intention to
abandon his job and put him in a situation where he was forced to quit
as his continued employment has been rendered impossible
o Diamonds acts amounted to constructive dismissal
o His filing of the illegal dismissal case proves desire to return and
negates charge of abandonment
o Granted Felipe separation pay

ISSUE:
WN NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing Llamas appeal on
mere technicality YES

Llamas did not file a memorandum of appeal from the LAs decision but a
motion for reconsideration which is not allowed for LAs decisions - MR
however, may be treated as an appeal
He failed to attached his certification of non-forum shopping which would
have justified an end to the case BUT a careful consideration of the

circumstances show that the NLRC should have given due course to Llamas
appeal
o Llamas had to hire a new counsel because his former counsel failed to
submit (despite his please) to submit his position paper to the LA
NLRC should have relaxed the application of procedural rules in the broader
interests of substantial justice.
o rules of procedure are mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment
of justice. A strict and rigid application which would result in
technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote substantial
justice should not be allowed
o We should remember that "the dismissal of an employees appeal
on purely technical ground is inconsistent with the
constitutional mandate on protection to labor.
o Under the Constitution and the Labor Code, the State is bound to
protect labor and assure the rights of workers to security of
tenure tenurial security being a preferred constitutional right
that, under these fundamental guidelines, technical infirmities
in labor pleadings cannot defeat

Whether Felipe abandoned his work or had been constructively dismissed


CONSTRUCTIVELY DISMISSED

To constitute abandonment of work, two elements must concur:


o the employee must have failed to report for work or must have been
absent without valid or justifiable reason; and
o there must have been a clear intention [on the part of the employee]
to sever the employer-employee relationship manifested by some overt
act.
petitioners unerringly failed to prove the alleged abandonment. They did not
present proof of some overt act of Llamas that clearly and unequivocally
shows his intention to abandon his job.

Petition denied. CA decision affirmed.

You might also like