Alzosa v. National Labor Relations Commission
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Ricardo Alzosa was dismissed from employment by Metal Lux Industries, Inc. on grounds of serious misconduct or willful disobedience, and gross and habitual neglect of duties, specifically citing habitual absences without excuse, habitual lateness, leaving his post without permission, and disobedience to his foreman and department head. The company's position paper detailed instances of tardiness, undertime, unexcused absences, and a specific instance of refusal to obey an instruction from the production coordinator. Procedural History: The Labor Arbiter ordered the reinstatement of Ricardo Alzosa with full back wages. Upon appeal to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), the reinstatement was affirmed, but the award of back wages was deleted. The NLRC noted that while the employer failed to show a company policy on employee attendance and tardiness, and that dismissal might be too severe a penalty for insubordination, it considered the employee not entirely blameless and thus deleted the back wages. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, questioning the NLRC's denial of back wages despite the finding of illegal dismissal and an order of reinstatement.
Issue(s)
Whether the denial of back wages, notwithstanding an order of reinstatement due to illegal dismissal, fully respects the constitutional mandate of security of tenure. Whether the NLRC erred in deleting the award of back wages considering the circumstances surrounding the employee's return to work and the employer's actions.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the reinstatement of petitioner Ricardo Alzosa but reversed the order of the National Labor Relations Commission insofar as it denied the payment of back wages. The Court awarded one year's back wages.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of security of tenure and back wages: The Court held that the denial of back wages, despite a finding of illegal dismissal and an order of reinstatement, undermines the constitutional mandate of security of tenure. The employer failed to present evidence of a company policy regarding employee attendance and tardiness, nor was it shown that such a policy was known to the employee. Furthermore, even assuming the employee committed an act of insubordination, the Court found dismissal to be too severe a penalty, especially since the immediate supervisor had only recommended a transfer to another department. To deny back wages under these circumstances would be to repudiate established jurisprudence that vitalizes the guarantee of security of tenure. The Court cited a line of decisions starting from Philippine Air Lines, Inc. v. Philippine Airlines Employees Association to support this principle. On the specific circumstances militating against full back pay: While affirming the principle of awarding back wages, the Court considered certain circumstances that prevented the petitioner from receiving three years' back pay, as is usually done in such cases. The petitioner was not entirely blameless regarding his return to work. Despite the Labor Arbiter's decision ordering reinstatement as early as January 24, 1978, the petitioner did not present himself to the company for reinstatement, nor did he communicate his intention to do so. This inaction persisted even after the order denying the company's motion for stay of execution. Moreover, a letter from the employer's counsel in May 1979, offering reinstatement within fifteen days, was received by someone else, and the petitioner did not report within the stipulated period, which the employer considered a voluntary renunciation. Although these facts did not constitute a voluntary renunciation, they were considered in determining the amount of back wages to be granted.
Main Doctrine
Denial of back wages despite reinstatement is improper when the employer fails to prove company policy on attendance and tardiness, and the offense, if any, is not severe enough to warrant dismissal, especially when the immediate supervisor recommended a lesser penalty.