Elardo v. Shiro Taxi (G.R. No. 230634, August 14, 2017)


CASE DIGEST: [G.R. No. 230634, August 14, 2017]. PATRICIO B. ELARDO, JR., DIOSCORO C. TUBIGON, TIRSO MACAROY, RODRIGO E. BIHAS, ROMEO O. TIKMANG, ET AL. V. SHIRO TAXI COMPANY AND/OR TITA S. JINGO.

The CA found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) when the latter affirmed the ruling of the labor arbiter that petitioners had not been illegally dismissed.

Based on a careful review of the arguments presented, the Supreme Court DENIED the petition for failure to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in the challenged Decision and Resolution.

The Supreme Court held that the stoppage of operations by respondent on 30 January 2012 did not amount to petitioners' dismissal from employment. In fact, as pointed out by the NLRC in its Resolution dated 28 November 2013, Article 301 (formerly Article 286) of the Labor Code provides that a bona fide suspension of business operations for not more than six months does not terminate employment. Furthermore, petitioners have never refuted the claim of respondent that they were asked to report back to work after the one-day suspension of operations.

LABOR CODE, Article 301 (formerly Article 286):
Article 301. When Employment Not Deemed Terminated. — The bona fide suspension of the operation of a business or undertaking for a period not exceeding six (6) months, or the fulfillment by the employee of a military or civic duty shall not terminate employment. In all such cases, the employer shall reinstate the employee to his former position without loss of seniority rights if he indicates his desire to resume his work not later than one (1) month from the resumption of operations of his employer or from his relief from the military or civic duty.

Popular Posts