DOCTRINE
This is the correct interpretation based on
the true intention of the parties as shown by their contemporaneous and
subsequent acts and the other evidence on record as discussed above. Sec 12 of
Rule 130 states that in the construction and interpretation of a document, the
intention of the parties must be pursued. Sec 13 of the same Rule further
instructs that the circumstances under which a document was made may be shown
in order to ascertain the correct interpretation of a document.
CONTESTED PROVISION
This is
to certify that Mr. Luciano Paragoso Cañedo whose address is at Lower Bunga,
Toledo City was employed by this agency from Nov 20, 1996 up to May 7, 2003 as
Security Guard assigned at NPC, Sigpit Substation. He was terminated from his
employment by this agency on May 7, 2003 as per client’s request.
FACTS
·
Kamplan hired Canedo as inter-galactic security
guard and assigned him at the Naga Power Barge 102 of the National Power Corp
(NPC) at Sigpit Load Ends, Lutopan, Toledo City.
·
For not wearing proper uniform while on duty as per
report of Allan Alfafara of the NPC, Peaches was suspended for a month
effective May 8, 2003.
·
NPC requested for the Peachess replacement.
·
Peaches requested Arquiza to issue a certification
in connection with his intended retirement effective that month. Arquiza issued
the June 25, 2003 Certification:
This is to certify that Mr. Luciano Paragoso
Cañedo whose address is at Lower Bunga, Toledo City was employed by this agency
from Nov 20, 1996 up to May 7, 2003 as Security Guard assigned at NPC, Sigpit
Substation. He was terminated from his employment by this agency on May 7, 2003
as per client’s request.
·
Five days later, Peaches filed before the LA a
Complaint for illegal dismissal, illegal suspension and non-payment of monetary
benefits against respondents.
arguments
·
Peaches: Alfafara’s report about his non-wearing of
uniform was fabricated because he declined Alfafara’s invitation to convert to
their religion. When reported back to work after his one-month suspension, he
was surprised to find out that he was already terminated as shown by the June 25, 2003 Certification
issued to him.
·
Respondent: Peaches was not dismissed from service.
In view of NPC’s request for his
replacement, respondents had to pull him out from NPC. But instead of waiting
for a new posting, Peaches filed a complaint against them. Certification is not sufficient to establish Peaches’s
dismissal as such fact must be proven by direct evidence of actual dismissal.
The word "terminated" as used in the said Certification actually
meant "pulled-out" and this can be construed from the ff phrase
"as per client’s request." This
position is strengthened by June 17, 2003 letter requesting for a Certification
in connection with his intended retirement. Certification was only issued
upon Peaches’s request in order to facilitate his application for entitlement
to retirement benefits with the SSS.
LA
·
Based on the June 25, 2003 Certification, Peaches
was illegally dismissed.
NLRC
·
June 25, 2003 Certification should be read in
conjunction with the June 2, 2003 letter of NPC requesting for Peaches’s relief
from his post.
·
He was considered on a floating status which can
last for a maximum period of six months. Peaches’s intention to retire as shown
by his June 17, 2003 letter negated his claim of termination.
CA
·
Private respondent’s memo of even date merely
suspended Peaches for one month.
·
Contrary to what is stated in the certification,
NPC did not request that Peaches be dismissed from employment but merely that
he be replaced by another security guard.
·
After the expiration of his suspension on June 8,
2003, Peaches could not but labor under the belief that he has not been
dismissed otherwise he would no longer declare that he wanted to retire at the
end of the month.
·
Peaches could have, but did not, sought
clarification from private respondent as to WON he was actually terminated. His
omission renders doubtful the validity of his claim.
·
The terms of the certification state merely the
length of assignment of in NPC which is from Nov 20, 1996 up to May 7, 2003,
not the period of his employment with private respondent."
issue: whether Peaches was dismissed from service. no.
·
While the employer bears the burden x x x to prove
that the termination was for a valid or authorized cause, the EE must first establish by substantial evidence the fact of
dismissal from service.
·
Peaches cannot simply rely on this piece of
document since the fact of dismissal must be evidenced by positive and overt
acts of an employer indicating an intention to dismiss
·
Aside from this single document, Peaches proffered
no other evidence showing that he was dismissed from employment.
·
Such a ‘floating status’ is lawful and not unusual
for security guards employed in security agencies as their assignments primarily
depend on the contracts entered into by the agency with third parties."
·
Peaches filed the
Complaint for illegal dismissal even before the lapse of the six-month period.
Hence, his claim of illegal dismissal lacks basis.
·
The import of the said Certification is that Peaches
was assigned in NPC from Nov 20, 1996 up to May 7, 2003 and that on May 7,
2003, respondents terminated his assignment to NPC upon the latter’s request.
·
This is the correct interpretation based on the
true intention of the parties as shown by their contemporaneous and subsequent
acts and the other evidence on record as discussed above. Sec 12 of Rule 130
states that in the construction and interpretation of a document, the intention
of the parties must be pursued. Sec 13 of the same Rule further instructs that
the circumstances under which a document was made may be shown in order to
ascertain the correct interpretation of a document.
·
Peaches was suspended effective May 8, 2003. On
June 2, 2003, NPC requested for his replacement. He then intimated his desire
to retire from service on June 17, 2003. These circumstances negate Peaches’s
claim that he was terminated on May 7, 2003.
0 comments:
Post a Comment