G.R. No. 235725 - JOEL A. TAPIA, VS. GA2 PHARMACEUTICAL, INC..

Ruling

WHEREFORE , premises considered, the assailed Decision dated 29 January 2016 is REVERSED AND SET ASIDE. A new one is rendered declaring the complainant to have been illegally dismissed. Respondent GA2 Pharmaceutical Inc. is ordered to pay complainant separation pay and backwages until the finality of this Decision. Finally, respondent is ordered to pay complainant attorney's fees equivalent to 10% of the judgment award. All other claims are denied for lack of merit. SO ORDERED . [30] The NLRC found that (1) Tapia sufficiently proved the fact of his dismissal when he made a categorical account of the pertinent events which Saldanha himself failed to refute; [31] (2) The affidavits of GA2's employees attesting that it was Tapia who shouted at Saldanha were self-serving; [32] (3) There was no proof of Tapia's receipt of the NTE; (4) The claim that Tapia was a probationary employee was a mere afterthought; (5) Tapia's immediate action against his dismissal negated the concept of abandonment, [33] and (6) Tapia's refusal to be reinstated during the conciliation conference was brought about by the parties' strained relations and not by his alleged decision to abandon his work. [34] On motion for reconsideration, [35] GA2 submitted Saldanha's affidavit on the June 9, 2015 incident and proof of Tapia's receipt of the NTE. It also submitted the affidavit of Tapia's former employer and GA2's franchise holder for its Mandaluyong branch Lilibeth Bolsico (Bolsico) to prove Tapia's employment with her in July 2013 as a part-time pharmacy consultant. Bolsico stated that she recommended Tapia to GA2 when Tapia needed a full-time job. The NLRC denied reconsideration under Resolution [36] dated August 16, 2016. RULING OF THE COURT OF APPEALS The Court of Appeals, by Decision [37] dated July 12, 2017 partially granted GA2's petition for certiorari and ordered Tapia's reinstatement, sans backwages. It ruled that Tapia failed to prove that he was dismissed from work. His allegations in support of his charge of illegal dismissal were self-serving and unsubstantiated. He even failed to show the supposed resignation letter he refused to sign. [38] As for GA2, the Court of Appeals, too, disregarded its charge of abandonment against Tapia. On this score, the Court of Appeals did not give credence to the affidavits executed by Tapia's co-employees against him. It also found that Tapia did not receive the NTE which GA2 claimed to have sent him. Further, it rejected GA2's claim that Tapia was a probationary employee who supposedly failed GA2's performance evaluation. While GA2 presented the alleged probationary contract, it failed to prove that it explained to Tapia the standards under which he would qualify as a regular employee at the time of employment. [39] Tapia's motion for reconsideration was denied under Resolution [40] dated October 27, 2017. THE PRESENT PETITION Tapia now seeks affirmative relief through Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. He maintains that he was illeg