Verbal termination: Court explains standard for proving dismissal claims
The Twenty Third Division of the Philippine Court of Appeals recently dealt with a dismissal case between a furniture manufacturer and its former worker who claimed he received only verbal notice about his employment ending.
The worker argued the company's Human Resources (HR) officer told him in April 2019 that his employment would end, without providing written notice. The case reached the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and later the Court of Appeals.
At issue was whether the worker had sufficient evidence to prove illegal dismissal based primarily on verbal communication from an HR officer.
The furniture manufacturing company, Chiba Furniture and Export Component, hired the worker as a composer in August 2018.
According to his testimony, they classified him as an apprentice with a daily rate of ₱305.00, though he couldn't recall signing apprenticeship documents.
The worker claimed he worked seven days weekly from 6:30 AM until 7:30 PM without receiving overtime pay, holiday pay, or 13th-month pay.
His employment later transferred to a manpower agency, though he said he continued working under the original employer's supervision.
The company presented different dates, stating they employed him as an apprentice from December 2018 to March 2019, supported by daily time records showing irregular attendance.
The NLRC initially found merit in the worker's claim based on a co-worker's affidavit that stated: "I can recall that he was dismissed around April 2019. I was there when [the HR officer], our HR, informed him that he will be employed only until April 2019, and that he will thereafter have to stop working."
However, the Court of Appeals ruled differently: "Fair evidentiary rule dictates that, before employers are burdened to prove that they did not commit illegal dismissal, it is incumbent upon [the worker] to first establish by substantial evidence the fact of his dismissal."
The court added: "Neither an allegation was made by [the worker] on the surrounding circumstances before and after the said verbal instruction of [the HR officer], i.e., whether he immediately stopped working or whether he continued to report for work but was refused entry by [the employer]."
The Court of Appeals found: "In the absence of any showing of an overt or positive act to establish that [the worker] was dismissed from work by [the employer], either actually or constructively, his claim of illegal dismissal cannot be sustained."
The decision concluded with an important principle about cases where neither dismissal nor abandonment is proven: "Where [the worker's] failure to work was occasioned neither by his abandonment nor by a termination, the burden of economic loss is not rightfully shifted to [the employer]. Each party must bear his own loss."
The court's ruling established that verbal communication alone about employment ending, without additional evidence of actual termination, was insufficient to prove illegal dismissal claims.
