Airborne Maintenance and Allied Services Inc vs. Arnulfo Egos

Airborne Maintenance and Allied Services Inc. vs. Arnulfo M.
Egos,
G.R. No. 222748. April 3, 2019
Facts:
Petitioners Airborne Maintenance and Allied Services, Inc. (Airborne) a
company engaged in providing manpower services to various clients, hired the
services of Private Respondent Arnulfo Egos (Egos) as Janitor. He was assigned
at the Balintawak Branch of Meralco, a client of Airborne.
20 years thereafter the contract between Airborne and Meralco-Balintawak

Branch expired and a new contract was awarded to Landbees Corporation, and
the latter absorbed all employees of Airborne except Egos, who allegedly had a
heart ailment. Egos consulted another doctor and, based on the medical result,
he was declared in good health and fit to work. He showed the duly issued
medical certificate to Airborne but the same was disregarded. He also reported
for work but was just ignored by Airborne and was told that there was no work
available for him. Feeling aggrieved, he filed a complaint for constructive/illegal
dismissal.
Petitioner argues that there was no dismissal to speak of as it had valid

grounds to suspend its business operation or undertaking for a period of six
months and place its employees in a floating status during that period.
Labor Arbiter rendered a decision in favor of Airborne, NLRC rendered a

decision reversing the findings of the Labor Arbiter and declaring private
respondent to have been constructively/illegally dismissed, CA Affirmed the
decision of NLRC.
Hence, this Petition.
Issue/s:
1. Whether or not the respondent herein was constructively dismissed.

2. Whether or not Airborne has valid grounds to suspend its business
operation or undertaking for a period of six months and place its employee
in a floating status during that period.
Held:
1.
Yes. The respondent herein was constructively dismissed.
/Hannah Lane S. Garcia

The Court of Appeals held that in cases of termination of employees, the well-
entrenched policy is that no worker shall be dismissed except for just or
authorized cause provided by law and after due process.
Dismissals of employees have two facets: first, the legality of the act of
dismissal, which constitutes substantive due process; and second, the legality
in the manner of dismissal, which constitutes procedural due process.
Clearly, the failure to observe the twin requisites of notice and hearing not only
makes the dismissal of an employee illegal regardless of his alleged violation,
but is also violative of the employee's right to due process.
Here, Airborne alleged that it sent letters/notices to private respondent

directing him to report for work. Nonetheless, no iota of evidence was presented
by Airborne sufficiently showing that the letters/notices were actually received
by respondent. In fact, said letters/notices were returned with a notation "R TS
unknown" inasmuch as respondent's address was incomplete and such was
intentionally done for the latter not to receive said letters/notices.
As correctly observed by public respondent NLRC, the letters/notices were

mere afterthoughts since Airborne was already aware of the filing of the illegal
dismissal complaint prior to the sending of the said letters/notices.
It must be stressed that respondent made several follow-ups, but Airborne did
not give him a new assignment. Moreover, respondent gave his cellphone
number with Christine Solis, Airborne's Administrative Officer, but to no avail.
Hence, in this case, it is beyond cavil that none of the foregoing mandatory
provisions of the labor law were complied with by Airborne.
2.
No. Airborne has no valid grounds to suspend its business operation or

undertaking for a period of six months and place its employee in a floating
status during that period.
The Court finds that petitioner failed to prove that the termination of the
contract with Meralco resulted in a bona fide suspension of its business
operations so as to validly place respondent in a floating status.
In implementing this measure, jurisprudence has set that the employer should
notify the DOLE and the affected employee, at least one month prior to the
intended date of suspension of business operations. An employer must also
prove the existence of a clear and compelling economic reason for the
temporary shutdown of its business or undertaking and that there were no
available posts to which the affected employee could be assigned.
Here, a review of the submissions of the parties shows that petitioner failed to
show compliance with the notice requirement to the DOLE and respondent.
Hence, petitioner's acts of not informing respondent and the DOLE of the
suspension of its operations, failing to prove the bona fide suspension of its
business or undertaking, ignoring respondent's follow-ups on a new
assignment, and belated sending of letters/notices which were returned to it,
were done to make it appear as if respondent had not been dismissed. These
acts, however, clearly amounted to a dismissal, for which petitioner is liable.

Airborne Maintenance and Allied Services Inc vs. Arnulfo Egos

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Airborne Maintenance and Allied Services Inc vs. Arnulfo Egos

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Airborne Maintenance and Allied Services Inc vs. Arnulfo Egos

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Airborne Maintenance and Allied Services Inc. vs. Arnulfo M.

20 years thereafter the contract between Airborne and Meralco-Balintawak

Petitioner argues that there was no dismissal to speak of as it had valid

Labor Arbiter rendered a decision in favor of Airborne, NLRC rendered a

Hence, this Petition.

1. Whether or not the respondent herein was constructively dismissed.

/Hannah Lane S. Garcia

Here, Airborne alleged that it sent letters/notices to private respondent

As correctly observed by public respondent NLRC, the letters/notices were

No. Airborne has no valid grounds to suspend its business operation or

/Hannah Lane S. Garcia

You might also like