Death's Impact on Illegal Dismissal Cases

In the case of Nedira vs. NJ World Corporation (G.R. No. 240005, December 6, 2022), the Supreme Court faced the question of whether the death of a complainant during a pending illegal dismissal case warrant its dismissal? The Court ruled in the negative.

In this case, Florencio Nedira filed a complaint for constructive/illegal dismissal against his employer NJ World. However, during its pendency, he passed away, promting his wife, Emma, to file a motion for substitution with the Labor Arbiter to continue the legal battle with NJ World.

NJ World opposed the substitution arguing that the complaint did not survive Florencio’s death considering that the subject of his employment is not a property right.

The Supreme Court decided the issue in favor of Emma, given that a complaint for illegal dismissal inherently involves property rights, and an employer who wrongfully interferes with such right is an actionable wrong. Accordingly, a complaint for illegal dismissal has a dual character in that it is not only an injury to the rights of the complainant premised on the apparent illegal dismissal of an employee, but such case also involves property rights, that is the employment of an individual.

The Court recognized that public interest is imbued in each and every employment contract and, in effect, a complaint for illegal dismissal (naturally involving the employment contract of the complainant) cannot simply be classified as either personal or real, like an ordinary civil action.

This legal spectacle unfolds as a testament to the unique nature of illegal dismissal case. In so far as labor disputes are concerned, death has no power in such a setting. The Court’s decision serves as a powerful narrative arc, challenging the traditional denouement of legal matters following the demise of a party, and denouncing the previous ruling in Fontana Development Corp. vs. Vukasinovic.