Back to Search
JurisprudenceG.R. No. 216716 -

G.R. No. 216716 - JOSE EDWIN G. ESICO, VS. ALPHALAND CORPORATION AND ALPHALAND DEVELOPMENT, INC..

Share:

TL;DR — Ruling

WHEREFORE, a Decision is hereby rendered DISMISSING the case for illegal dismissal under NLRC-NCR Case No. 07-10970-12 entitled: Jose Edwin G. Esico v. Alphaland for lack of merit.

Decision

Ruling

WHEREFORE, a Decision is hereby rendered DISMISSING the case for illegal dismissal under NLRC-NCR Case No. 07-10970-12 entitled: Jose Edwin G. Esico v. Alphaland for lack of merit. However, Respondents are ordered to pay [Esico] his proportionate 13th month pay in the amount of P45,450.00. In the case entitled Alphaland Development, Inc. and/or Christian Grant Y. Tomas vs. Jose Edwin G. Esico, [Esico] is hereby ordered to reimburse Alphaland the amount of P997,700.00 representing the portion of the Eurocopter and Cessna training expenses in proportion to the number of years not yet served by [Esico] in the second case. [22] The LA ruled that all the acts enumerated by Esico which led him to resign did not amount to constructive dismissal. The LA found that Esico's employment contract with respondents' group of companies contemplated: (i) a concurrent designation as RSMO and pilot, (ii) the salary to be paid by PhilWeb, and (iii) a conjunctive reimbursement for training costs and minimum term of five-year service with respondents Alphaland. The LA likewise found that Esico acquiesced to the arrangement when he affixed his conformity to the engagement letters dated March 19 and April 10, 2010, respectively, as well as the job offer sheet dated August 22, 2011. [23] As regards Esico's claim that respondents Alphaland failed to provide and schedule him for recurrent flight trainings despite repeated requests, and their overall nonchalance to serious flight safety concerns he had raised, the LA pointed out that respondents did not require Esico to fly a helicopter with an expired recurrent training. Moreover, the lack of recurrent flight training did not affect Esico's other designation as respondents' RSMO. [24] Ruling of the National Labor Relations Commission: The NLRC reversed the LA's ruling, thus: WHEREFORE, premises considered, Jose Edwin G. Esico's appeal is GRANTED. The assailed Decision of Labor Arbiter Lilia S. Savari dated December 12, 2012 is MODIFIED. It is hereby declared that Esico was illegally constructively dismissed from his employment. Alphaland Corporation and Alphaland Development Inc. are ordered to solidarity pay the following monetary awards to Esico: 1) Full backwages from the time he was illegally constructively dismissed on July 5, 2012 up to finality of this decision, which, as of April 14, 2013, have already accumulated P2,205,000.00; 2) Separation pay equivalent to one (1) month pay per year of service, reckoned from his first day of employment up to the finality of this decision, a fraction of at least six (6) months being considered as one (1) whole year, which, as of April 14, 2013 has already accumulated to P690,000.00; 3) Unpaid salaries totaling P3,680,000.00; and 4) Attorney's fees equivalent to ten percent (10%) of his total monetary award. Jose Edwin G. Esico is ABSOLVED from any liability to reimburse Alphaland the amount of P997,700.00. The award for proportionate 13 th month pay of P45,450.00 is AFFIRMED. [2