Scribd
Upload
24 views7 pages

DiamondTaxi VS Llamas

This case involves a complaint for illegal dismissal filed by Felipe Llamas, a taxi driver for Diamond Taxi owned by Bryan Ong. Diamond Taxi claimed that Llamas was absent without leave for several days in July 2005 and had committed traffic violations and acts of insubordination in the past, constituting just cause for his termination. However, the Court of Appeals found that Diamond Taxi failed to prove that Llamas intended to abandon his job, and instead made his continued employment impossible through their actions. This amounted to constructive dismissal. The Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling, finding that Llamas was constructively dismissed without just cause.

Uploaded by

Jann Marie Calledo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
24 views7 pages

DiamondTaxi VS Llamas

This case involves a complaint for illegal dismissal filed by Felipe Llamas, a taxi driver for Diamond Taxi owned by Bryan Ong. Diamond Taxi claimed that Llamas was absent without leave for several days in July 2005 and had committed traffic violations and acts of insubordination in the past, constituting just cause for his termination. However, the Court of Appeals found that Diamond Taxi failed to prove that Llamas intended to abandon his job, and instead made his continued employment impossible through their actions. This amounted to constructive dismissal. The Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling, finding that Llamas was constructively dismissed without just cause.

Uploaded by

Jann Marie Calledo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 7

DIAMOND TAXI

VS.
LLAMAS
Summary :
Llamas worked as a taxi driver for petitioner Diamond Taxi,owned and operated by
petitioner Bryan Ong. Llamas filed before the Labor Arbiter (LA) a complaint for
illegal dismissal against the petitioners. the petitioners denied dismissing Llamas.
They claimed that Llamas had been absent without official leave for several days,
beginning July 14, 2005 until August 1, 2005. The petitioners submitted a copy of the
attendance log book to prove that Llamas had been absent on these cited dates. They
also pointed out that Llamas committed several traffic violations in the years 2000-
2005b and had issued him several memoranda for acts of insubordination and refusal
to heed management instructions. They argued that these acts constitute grounds for
the termination of Llamas' employment. CA pointed out that the petitioners failed to
prove overt acts showing Llamas'clear intention to abandon his job. On the contrary,
the petitioners placed Llamas in a situation where he was forced to quit as his
continued employment has been rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely and
noted that Llamas immediately filed the illegal dismissal case that proved his desire
to return to work and negates the charge of abandonment.
Facts
* Felipe, a taxi driver for Diamond Taxi owned and operated byBryan Ong, filed a complaint for illegal
dismissal with the LAon July 2005.

* Diamond claimed that they terminated his employment for just grounds:
1. He had been absent without official leave for severaldays from July 14, 2005-August 1, 2005;
2. Traffic violations;
3. Insubordination; and
4. Refusal to management instructions.

(LA)
Dismissed Felipe’s 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
(Bryan’s brother and operationsmanager) on July 13, 2005. 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)
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)
Set aside NLRC resolution. Petitioners failed to prove overt acts showing Felipe’s
intention to abandon his job and put him in a situationwhere he was forced to quit
as his continuedemployment has been rendered impossible.

• Diamond’s acts amounted to constructive dismissal.


• His filing of the illegal dismissal case proves desire toreturn and negates
charge of abandonment.
• Granted Felipe separation pay.
ISSUES
NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing
Llamas’ appeal on mere technicality. –YES

* Llamas did not file a memorandum of appeal from the LA’s decision but a motion for
reconsideration which is not allowed for LA’s decisions. MR however, may be treated as
an appeal

* He failed to attached his certification of non-forum shoppingwhich would have


justified an end to the case BUT a carefulconsideration of the circumstances show that
the NLRC should have given due course to Llamas’ appeal. Llamas had to hire a new
counsel because his former counsel failed to submit (despite his please) to submithis
position paper to the LA.

* NLRC should have relaxed the application of procedural rules in the broader interests
of substantial justice.
RULING

CA, therefore, correctly regarded Llamas as constructively dismissed for the


petitioners' failure to prove the alleged just cause -abandonment- for his
dismissal.Constructive dismissal exists when there is cessation of work because
continued employment is rendered impossible,unreasonable or unlikely.
Constructive dismissal is adismissal in disguise or an act amounting to dismissal
but made to appear as if it were not.

DISPOSITIVE:
Petition DENIED. CA decision AFFIRMED.
THANK YOU!

You might also like