JOEL A. TAPIA vs. GA2 PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.

The governing principle is that a verbal directive from an immediate supervisor or corporate officer with authority to terminate employment, explicitly instructing the employee to stop reporting for work, constitutes an overt act of dismissal. Once the employee establishes the fact of dismissal by substantial evidence, the burden shifts to the employer to prove that the termination was for a just or authorized cause and that procedural due process was observed. The Court held that the filing of an illegal dismissal complaint inherently negates any presumption of abandonment, and that payroll records and regulatory licenses suffice to establish the commencement of employment when an employer’s contrary documentary evidence is submitted belatedly and without prior disclosure.

Petitioner Joel A. Tapia worked as a pharmacist and later as a roving pharmacist-driver for respondent GA2 Pharmaceutical, Inc. On June 11, 2015, petitioner requested relief from delivery duties due to illness and a vehicle number-coding restriction. Respondent’s General Manager reprimanded him, directed a personnel officer to draft a resignation letter, and upon petitioner’s refusal to sign, verbally ordered him to leave the premises and never return. Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal on June 15, 2015. Respondent maintained that petitioner voluntarily abandoned his post following a performance dispute, submitted affidavits from co-employees, and claimed petitioner was hired under a probationary contract dated March 25, 2015.

• Petitioner commenced employment with respondent in July 2013 as a pharmacist, earning a monthly salary of P16,000.00, and was subsequently assigned as a roving pharmacist-driver supervising multiple branches.
• On June 11, 2015, petitioner requested relief from delivery duties due to illness and a vehicle number-coding restriction.
• Respondent’s General Manager reprimanded petitioner, directed a personnel officer to draft a resignation letter, and upon petitioner’s refusal to sign, verbally ordered him to leave the premises and never return.
• Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal through the Single-Entry Approach on June 15, 2015, and subsequently filed a formal complaint before the Labor Arbiter.
• Respondent contended that petitioner abandoned his post following a performance dispute, presented affidavits from co-employees alleging petitioner’s misconduct, and claimed petitioner was hired under a probationary contract dated March 25, 2015.
• Respondent later submitted a notice to explain and the affidavit of a franchise holder during its motion for reconsideration before the NLRC, asserting petitioner’s prior part-time status and subsequent probationary employment.

• Petitioner maintained that the General Manager’s verbal command to cease reporting for work constituted constructive dismissal, and that his immediate filing of a labor complaint demonstrated he did not voluntarily abandon his employment.
• Petitioner argued that the affidavits of respondent’s co-employees were inherently unreliable and self-serving, given their economic dependence on the employer.
• Petitioner asserted that his employment commenced in July 2013, as evidenced by payroll slips and the respondent’s FDA license bearing his name, rendering the subsequently presented probationary contract an unavailing afterthought.

• Respondent argued that petitioner voluntarily abandoned his duties following an altercation and failed to respond to a notice to explain, thereby severing the employer-employee relationship.
• Respondent maintained that petitioner was merely a probationary employee whose contract was terminated due to poor performance and insubordination, and that the co-employee affidavits corroborated the employer’s version of events.
• Respondent waived its right to file a formal comment before the Supreme Court after failing to comply with multiple directives to do so, leaving its prior pleadings as the sole basis of its defense.

• Procedural Issues: Whether the Supreme Court may resolve factual inconsistencies among the Labor Arbiter, NLRC, and Court of Appeals, and whether respondent’s failure to file a comment constitutes waiver.
• Substantive Issues: Whether the General Manager’s verbal directive constitutes an overt act of dismissal; whether the filing of a complaint negates the presumption of abandonment; whether petitioner’s employment commenced in July 2013 or March 2015; and the propriety of the monetary awards.

• Procedural: The Court held that it may probe factual issues notwithstanding its general role as a non-trier of facts, given the conflicting findings of the lower tribunals. The Court found that respondent’s repeated failure to file a required comment despite multiple extensions constituted a waiver of its right to be heard.
• Substantive: The Court ruled that petitioner sufficiently established the fact of dismissal by substantial evidence. The verbal command issued by the General Manager, an officer with authority to terminate, constituted a clear overt act of dismissal. The Court found that the immediate filing of the illegal dismissal complaint negated any presumption of abandonment, and the unproven receipt of a notice to explain did not support the employer’s claim. The Court affirmed that the July 2013 payroll slips and FDA license sufficiently proved the commencement of employment, rendering the belatedly submitted probationary contract inadmissible as an afterthought. Consequently, the Court reinstated the NLRC’s award of backwages, separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, and ten percent (10%) attorney’s fees payable to the Public Attorney’s Office as a trust fund.

• Verbal Dismissal as Overt Act — A verbal directive from an immediate supervisor or corporate officer possessing the authority to terminate employment, explicitly instructing the employee to cease reporting for work, constitutes an overt act of dismissal. The Court applied this doctrine to hold that the General Manager’s command to “go home and never come back” sufficiently established the fact of termination, shifting the burden to the employer to prove just cause and due process.
• Filing of Complaint Negates Abandonment — The voluntary filing of an illegal dismissal complaint inherently contradicts the employer’s claim of abandonment, as it demonstrates the employee’s intent to remain employed and seek redress. The Court relied on this principle to reject respondent’s abandonment defense.
• Burden of Proof in Illegal Dismissal — The employee must first establish the fact of dismissal by substantial evidence, after which the burden shifts to the employer to prove that the termination was for a just or authorized cause and that procedural due process was observed. The Court applied this framework to conclude that petitioner met his initial burden, while respondent failed to discharge its shifted burden.

• "Verbal notice of termination can hardly be considered as valid or legal. To constitute valid dismissal from employment, two requisites must concur: (1) the dismissal must be for a just or authorized cause; and (2) the employee must be afforded an opportunity to be heard and to defend himself." — The Court cited this principle to frame the analysis, noting that while verbal notice is procedurally defective, it still constitutes an actionable overt act of dismissal when issued by an authorized supervisor, thereby triggering the employer’s burden to justify the termination.
• "In the present case, the one who verbally directed petitioner to no longer report for work was his immediate or direct supervisor, the Vice-President for Operations [General Manager], who has the capacity and authority to terminate petitioner's services... Co Say's verbal instruction, being petitioner Reyes' immediate supervisor, was authoritative, therefore, petitioner Reyes was not amiss in thinking that his employment has indeed already been terminated." — The Court adopted this reasoning to distinguish the present case from instances where unauthorized personnel issue termination directives, thereby validating petitioner’s reasonable belief that his employment was severed.

• Reyes v. Global Beer Below Zero, Inc. — Cited as controlling precedent establishing that a verbal command from an authorized supervisor constitutes an overt act of dismissal, thereby justifying the employee’s immediate filing of a labor complaint.
• Noblejas v. Italian Maritime Academy Phils., Inc. — Distinguished to clarify that termination directives from unauthorized personnel do not constitute overt acts of dismissal, unlike directives from officers with actual termination authority.
• Agapito v. Aeroplus Multi-Services, Inc. — Cited to support the Court’s authority to resolve factual inconsistencies among lower tribunals and to govern the proper disposition of attorney’s fees payable to the Public Attorney’s Office.
• Salabe v. Social Security Commission — Cited for the principle that no rigid evidentiary rule governs the establishment of an employer-employee relationship, and that payroll records and regulatory licenses suffice as proof of employment status.

• Labor Code of the Philippines (Articles 279 and 294) — Referenced as the statutory basis for awarding backwages and separation pay in lieu of reinstatement upon a finding of illegal dismissal.
• Republic Act No. 9406 amending Executive Order No. 292, Chapter 5, Title III, Book IV — Cited to mandate that attorney’s fees awarded to an employee represented by the Public Attorney’s Office shall be remitted to the PAO as a trust fund for the special allowances of its personnel.
• Rules of Court, Rule 45 — Cited as the procedural vehicle for the petition for review on certiorari, limiting the Court’s review to questions of law except where factual inconsistencies warrant exception.