Saturday, December 02, 2006 Actual dismissal By Dominador A. Almirante Labor case digest
IN a complaint for illegal dismissal filed by petitioner Bernardino A. Caingat against respondent Sta. Lucia Realty and Development Inc. (SLRDI), he contended that his suspension was indefinite despite the provision that no preventive suspension shall last longer than 30 days. Respondent SLRDI denied that petitioner was ever dismissed from the service.
There was evidence, however, that in the July 31, 1996 a “notice to the public” was published in the Philippine Daily Inquirer stating that as of June 20, 1996, petitioner was no longer connected with respondent and all his transactions thereafter were no longer honored by the company. Was there actual dismissal?
Ruling: Yes
Thus, in our view, the announcement made on July 21, 1996 would only mean that actual severance was effective June 20, 1996, as far as petitioner was concerned.
It was the date the petitioner was formally suspended, but clearly respondents were not expecting further investigation to happen. The order for petitioner to submit a written explanation under oath was just a formality. The termination was a fait accompli. The pro-forma notice made even more glaring management’s intent to separate him from the companies’ service.
(Bernardino A. Caingat versus National Labor Relations Commission, Sta. Lucia Realty and Development Inc., R.S. Maintenance and Services Inc. and R.S. Night Hawk Security and Investigation Agency Inc. G.R. 154308, March 10, 2005).
