Philippine Pizza, Inc. vs. Oraa

A legitimate job contractor is the employer of the workers it deploys, and an employee's mere absence without a clear intent to sever the employer-employee relationship does not constitute abandonment justifying dismissal. When the factual circumstances are substantially identical to previously decided cases, the doctrine of stare decisis mandates applying the prior rulings to establish the contractor's legitimacy.

Philippine Pizza, Inc. (PPI) is the franchisee and operator of the Pizza Hut chain of restaurants, while Consolidated Building Maintenance, Inc. (CBMI) is a corporation providing janitorial, kitchen, messengerial, and allied services to various clients, including PPI. The parties executed a Contract of Services on February 8, 2002. Respondents Michael A. Oraa and Bernardito R. Garcia, Jr. were initially hired by PPI as a team member and delivery rider, respectively, but were later advised to apply with CBMI, which then deployed them back to their former Pizza Hut branches. This arrangement became the subject of an earlier regularization case filed by the respondents against PPI.

Philippine Pizza, Inc. (PPI) operates the Pizza Hut chain of restaurants, while Consolidated Building Maintenance, Inc. (CBMI) provides janitorial and allied services to PPI under a Contract of Services executed on February 8, 2002. PPI initially hired Michael A. Oraa as a team member in April 2005 and Bernardito R. Garcia, Jr. as a delivery rider in January 2010. After their respective contracts ended, PPI advised them to apply with CBMI, which subsequently hired them and deployed them back to their former Pizza Hut branches to perform the same duties. In February 2013, respondents filed an earlier regularization case against PPI, which resulted in a decision declaring them regular employees of PPI.

On December 21, 2014, Oraa went on leave to attend his cousin's wedding, while Garcia was absent after rendering straight duty from 1:00 p.m. of December 20 until 1:00 a.m. of December 21. When they attempted to return to work on December 22, 2014, PPI no longer allowed them to report. On January 21, 2015, respondents filed a complaint for constructive illegal dismissal with prayer for reinstatement and money claims against PPI and CBMI. CBMI claimed the respondents incurred unauthorized absences from December 21 to 27, 2014, and argued it exercised its management prerogative in dismissing them for abandonment. CBMI sent a Notice to Explain to Oraa via registered mail on January 30, 2015, and issued a Notice of Charge/Notice to Explain against Garcia on March 13, 2015, both sent after the illegal dismissal complaint had already been lodged.

The Labor Arbiter found respondents to be regular employees of PPI and declared their dismissal illegal, concluding the transfer to CBMI was a scheme to prevent regularization. The NLRC affirmed this ruling, relying on the finality of its earlier decision in the regularization case. The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC, applying the doctrine of non-interference of judicial stability and agreeing that respondents were illegally dismissed because PPI failed to prove abandonment.

• Legitimate Job Contractor: Petitioner argued that CBMI is a legitimate job contractor and that respondents were CBMI's employees, not its own, adducing the Contract of Services, CBMI's Articles of Incorporation, DOLE Certificate of Registration, and remittance certifications to support this claim.
• Abandonment of Work: Petitioner and CBMI argued that respondents incurred unauthorized absences from December 21 to December 27, 2014, which constituted abandonment of work, a just cause for dismissal.

• Regular Employment Status: Respondents averred that they were regular employees of petitioner because their jobs were necessary and desirable to its business, and petitioner controlled and supervised their work and owned the tools they used.
• Constructive Illegal Dismissal: Respondents claimed that petitioner constructively dismissed them by preventing them from returning to work on December 22, 2014, following their absences on December 21, 2014, which was done in retaliation for their earlier regularization case.

• Job Contractor Status: Whether CBMI is a legitimate job contractor.
• Illegal Dismissal: Whether respondents were illegally dismissed from employment.

• Job Contractor Status: Yes. CBMI is a legitimate job contractor and the employer of respondents, based on the doctrine of stare decisis applied to substantially identical facts in prior cases.
• Illegal Dismissal: Yes. Respondents were illegally dismissed because CBMI failed to prove abandonment and did not comply with the two-notice rule for procedural due process.

• Job Contractor Status: Although the issue involves a question of fact generally not reviewable in a Rule 45 petition, the Court reviewed the factual finding of the CA that CBMI was a labor-only contractor because such inference was manifestly mistaken and based on a misapprehension of facts. The Court applied the doctrine of stare decisis, noting that the facts are substantially similar to previous cases involving the same parties—Consolidated Building Maintenance, Inc. vs. Asprec, Philippine Pizza, Inc. vs. Cayetano, and Borce vs. PPI Holdings, Inc. In those cases, the Court established that CBMI has substantial capital, runs a business independent from PPI, and maintains the right of control over its employees. Thus, CBMI was declared a legitimate job contractor and the employer of respondents.
• Illegal Dismissal: The Court disagreed with CBMI's argument that respondents' unauthorized absences constituted abandonment. Abandonment requires proof of two elements: failure to report for work without valid reason and a clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship, the latter being the more determinative factor. CBMI failed to prove any overt act showing respondents' deliberate intent to abandon their employment. Mere absence does not ipso facto amount to abandonment. Furthermore, respondents' filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal is inconsistent with the charge of abandonment. The Court also found that respondents were prevented from returning to work on December 22, 2014, and CBMI failed to rebut this. Even assuming abandonment occurred, CBMI violated procedural due process by sending the notices to explain long after respondents were already dismissed and after the complaint was filed. Therefore, the dismissal was illegal, entitling respondents to reinstatement, backwages, attorney's fees, and legal interest.

• Stare Decisis — The doctrine commands that a conclusion reached in one case should be applied to subsequent cases if the facts are substantially the same, even if the parties are different. The Court applied this to adopt the conclusions in prior cases that CBMI is a legitimate job contractor.
• Doctrine of Abandonment — Abandonment as a just cause for dismissal requires the concurrence of two elements: (1) the employee's failure to report for work or absence without valid or justifiable reason, and (2) a clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship, as manifested by overt acts. The second element is the more determinative factor, and mere absence does not amount to abandonment. The employer bears the burden of proving abandonment.
• Two-Notice Rule — In terminating an employee, the employer must comply with procedural due process by serving two notices: a notice to explain and a notice of termination. Failure to comply violates the employee's right to procedural due process, rendering the dismissal illegal.

• "The doctrine of stare decisis commands that for the sake of certainty, a conclusion reached in one case should be applied to those that follow if the facts are substantially the same, even though the parties may be different." — This passage defines the principle of stare decisis relied upon by the Court to establish CBMI's status as a legitimate job contractor based on prior rulings.
• "mere absence or failure to report for work does not, ipso facto, amount to abandonment of work." — This establishes the canonical rule that absence alone is insufficient to prove abandonment, requiring evidence of intent to sever the employment relationship.
• "in an illegal dismissal case, the onus probandi rests on the employer to prove that the employee's dismissal was for a valid cause." — This states the burden of proof in illegal dismissal cases, placing the responsibility on the employer to justify the termination.

• Consolidated Building Maintenance, Inc. vs. Asprec, 832 Phil. 630 (2018) — Controlling precedent. The Court relied on this case to establish that CBMI is a legitimate job contractor with substantial capital and control over its employees.
• Philippine Pizza, Inc. vs. Cayetano, 839 Phil. 381 (2018) — Controlling precedent. Followed to conclude that CBMI is a legitimate job contractor and the employer of the respondents.
• Borce vs. PPI Holdings, Inc., G.R. No. 252718 (2020) — Controlling precedent. Cited for the doctrine of stare decisis and the conclusion that CBMI is a legitimate job contractor.
• Nacar vs. Gallery Frames, 716 Phil. 267 (2013) — Applied to impose a 6% per annum interest on the total monetary awards from the date of finality until full satisfaction.

• Rule 45, Rules of Court — The Court's jurisdiction in a Rule 45 petition is limited to reviewing errors of law, unless the factual findings are devoid of support or glaringly erroneous. The Court reviewed the factual finding regarding CBMI's status due to misapprehension of facts.
• Rule 65, Rules of Court — The extraordinary remedy of certiorari is warranted when there is grave abuse of discretion, such as when the NLRC's findings are not supported by substantial evidence.

Caguioa (Chairperson), Gaerlan, Rosario, and Singh, JJ., concurred.