RESPONDENT Daniel M. Macuray was employed as a bus driver of petitioner Maria De Leon Transportation Inc.
He alleged that in November 2009, petitioner’s dispatcher did not assign a bus to him, for no apparent reason. For one month, he continually returned to follow up if a bus had already been assigned to him. Subsequently, when he returned to the company premises, the bus dispatcher informed him that he was already considered awol (absent without leave).
Thus, he filed a case for illegal dismissal against petitioner asking for money claims, damages and attorney’s fees.
Petitioner, on the other hand, denied having dismissed respondent from the service. It received information that respondent was already engaged in driving his family truck. The bus dispatcher from whom he inquired about his status had no power to terminate or declare him awol. He had not actually approached management to inquire about his employment status, even though he knew that the assistant manager, corporate secretary and director of the bus company resided with his family within the bus company’s station and compound in San Nicolas, Ilocos Norte.
Whose contention finds merit?
Ruling: That of petitioner.
The Court is inclined to believe petitioner’s allegations: respondent left his work as bus driver to work for his family’s trucking business. There is no truth to the allegation that respondent was dismissed, actually or constructively. He claims that the dispatcher informed him that he was awol; however, a mere bus dispatcher does not possess the power to fire him from work-this is a prerogative belonging to management.
Respondent did not show that he met with management to inquire on his status. On the other hand, it appears that the assistant manager, corporate secretary and director of the bus company, Elias Dimaya, resided with his family within the bus company’s station and compound in San Nicolas, Ilocos Norte.
Having worked for the bus company for 18 years, respondent should have known this fact, and he could have visited with Elias Dimaya at anytime, if his employment was so important that it meant his own survival and that of his family. Apparently, however, it would appear that this was not the case, for the simple reason that respondent had found employment elsewhere.
Thus, respondent’s failure to show that his follow-ups were properly directed at management bolsters petitioner’s claim that no follow-ups were made by him. The logical explanation for this is that he found employment elsewhere and thus opted to stop reporting for work, as was the practice of other bus drivers working for petitioner.
At any rate, even assuming that respondent was indeed told by respondent’s bus dispatcher Roger Pasion that he was awol, this was not tantamount to dismissal, actual or constructive.
An ordinary bus dispatcher has no power to dismiss an employee; in a typical bus company, a driver might even be of more significance than an ordinary dispatcher. Bus drivers are a more valuable resource than a dispatcher; without the former, the latter is useless. Without a driver, there could be no bus to dispatch or trip to schedule. It cannot therefore be said that an ordinary dispatcher is superior to a bus driver; at most, they are equal in rank.
The fact that respondent made no sincere effort to meet with the management of the bus company gives credence to petitioner’s allegation that he was never fired from work. (Maria De Leon Transportation, Inc. vs. Daniel M. Macuray, G.R. No. 214940, June 6, 2018).