Esico v. Alphaland Corp. G.R. No. 216716. November 17, 2021, SECOND DIVISION, (Hernando, J.)

 

Esico v. Alphaland Corp.
G.R. No. 216716. November 17, 2021, SECOND DIVISION, (Hernando, J.)

Doctrine:

The rule in illegal dismissal cases that while the employer bears the burden of proving that the termination was for a valid or authorized cause, the employee must first establish by substantial evidence the fact of his dismissal from service.

Facts:

The labor dispute between Esico and respondents Alphaland originated from the former employment relationship with PhilWeb Corporation (Phil Web), a part of respondents of companies.

Esico is a well-decorated officer, former pilot Philippine Airforce who retired with the rank of lieutenant colonel. He is licensed to fly both fixed wing and rotary wing civilian aircrafts and had just topped the Certified Security Professional Examinations at the time of his employment within respondents' group of companies. Given his impressive credentials, Phil Web initially hired Esico as Risk & Security Management Officer (RSMO).

By April 19, 2010, respondents Alphaland concurrently engaged Esico as a rotary wing pilot assigned to fly the Chairperson of respondents' group of companies; Roberto V. Ongpin; to his various engagements within and outside the country.

On even date, Esico sent an e-mail to Alphaland’s then Head of Security and Aviation, Mike Asperin, expressing elation at working for respondents' group of companies and specifically asking for the latter's recommendation on what salary figure to quote respondents for his engagement as Pilot.

In May 2011, along with four (4) other pilots of respondents Alphaland, Esico underwent flight training in the United States of America to operate the brand-new Cessna Grand Caravan 208B purchased by respondents Alphaland for the resort development of its affiliate and subsidiary, Alphaland Balesin Island Resort. The costs of the Cessna flight training amounted to P657,019.00 broken down as follows: (a) course fees of US$11,300.00; (b) airfare of P120,937.00; (c) terminal fee of P750.00; (d) per diem of US$801.00; (d) clothing allowance of US$200.00; and (e) accommodations of 25,562.00.

On December 23, 2011, Esico found out that he had been transferred from Phil web to Alphaland because he could not access his payroll with Phil web. This was confirmed by Philweb's Human Resource Administrator. The latter told Esico that he had been transferred to Alphaland effective December 1, 2011.

On March 3, 2012, Esico was handed a letter from respondents.  The said letter, among others provides that Alphaland agrees to advance the necessary expenses to send him for the ground and flight training course, and such, Esico further agreed render service to the Company for a minimum period of five years beginning on the start date indicated above. And that should he fail to complete the minimum years of service, Esico is subjected to reimburse the Respondent for the expenses spent on his training.

On July 3, 2012, Esico tendered his letter of resignation addressed to [respondents Alphaland’s] HR Manager. In his resignation Letter, he stated the following reasons: (a) serious embarrassments and insults had been committed against his person, honor and reputation on several occasions by a company officer; (b) serious flight safety concerns; ( c) absence of employment contract with Alphaland Corporation; (d) absence of helicopter recurrent training; (e) unresolved issues on services already rendered in favor of Alphaland Corporation as fixed wing pilot from May 2, 2011 to June 2012; and (f) other related matter.

On July 16.  2012, Esico received a demand letter from Alphaland's legal officer. Among other things, the letter demanded that Esico reimburse the amount of P977,720.00 representing the portion of his flight training expenses.

Esico filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before the Regional Arbitration Branch of the NLRC. He also sent a reply letter addressed to respondents' counsel refuting the allegations therein.  On August 2, 2012, Alphaland filed a complaint against Esico for alleged wrongful resignation and damages with the NLRC.

The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Alphaland in and all the acts enumerated by Esico which led him to resign did not amount to constructive dismissal, NLRC declared that Esico was illegally constructively dismissed from his employment. The CA annulled the NLRC decision.

Issues:

1.     Does the Labor Arbiter or NLRC have jurisdiction over the case?

2.     Whether Esico was constructively dismissed

Ruling:

1. No. The LA and the NLRC do not have jurisdiction over the said case.

In this case, the bone of contention between the parties lies in the interpretation of the employment contract, specifically the clause on the minimum service requirement in consideration of expenses (advances) for flight trainings. Unarguably, respondents Alphaland claim payment of actual damages equivalent to the amount they advanced for Esico's flight training who reneged on his contractual obligation by his premature resignation. Respondents Alphaland's cause of action, the supposed violation of the right-duty correlative between the parties, hinges on the enforceability of the contentious clause in the employment contract. Clearly, respondents' recourse against Esico is based on our law on contracts.

Respondents Alphaland's claim against Esico, albeit arising out of their employer-employee relationships, is not cognizable by the LA and the NLRC. Moreover, in determining which tribunal has jurisdiction over a case, we consider not only the status or relationship of the parties, but more so the nature of the question that is the subject of controversy.

Alpha land seek to enforce their rights under the employment contract consider ring Esico's failure to comply with his contractual obligation when he resigned from respondent corporations. The 2010 letter engaging Esico as pilot states that in the event of his resignation before completion of the required minimum service, Esico is obliged to reimburse the costs of his flight trainings pro-rated to the number of years already served. Failure to comply with either of the alternative obligations resulted in respondents Alphaland 's cause of action against Esico, which suit is cognizable by the regular courts of law.  Labor tribunals do not have jurisdiction to settle various issues necessitating application of our civil law on obligations and contracts.

Overall, jurisdiction being set by law and not by the parties, the LA and the NLRC cannot exercise jurisdiction over respondents Alphaland' complaint just by the mere expedient of the designation thereof as one for "wrongful resignation with claims of damages" and the employer-employee relationship between the parties.

2. No. Esico failed to establish his constructive dismissal by substantial evidence.

From his resignation letter and the evidence threshed out before the labor tribunals and the CA, we are hard pressed to make a finding that Esico' s resignation was involuntary brought about by unbearable, unreasonable, and discriminatory acts of respondents Alphaland. Apart from the employment contract which is the pith of the issue between the parties, Esico did not muster the standard of substantial evidence to prove that respondents Alphaland intended his dismissal. What is fairly apparent is that Esico resigned because he was dissatisfied and unhappy with respondents Alphaland for the cited reasons in his resignation letter.

Considering that Esico was not constructively dismissed, he is not entitled to backwages, and separation pay in lieu of reinstatement. The Court, however, ruled that Esico is entitled to his other money claims of unpaid salaries for his concurrent designation as RMSO and pilot of respondents' group of companies pursuant to the contentious employment contracts.

The arrangement set up by respondents Alphaland, reflected in the ambiguous employment contracts, worked for Esico's disadvantage who was given the run around by respondents each time he attempted to ascertain the true nature of the terms and conditions of his employment. Thus, considering the totality of the circumstances, to prevent injustice, as well as the evasion of an existing obligation, we recompute Esico's unpaid salaries under the various contracts he signed with respondents' group of companies.