Velasco v. Inciong
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Private respondent George Mendoza, an Office Clerk at Central Engineering Shop (Company), a business under receivership, did not report for work from February 28, 1977, to March 5, 1977. The Company, through its receiver Carlos Velasco, filed a report with the Department of Labor charging Mendoza with abandonment. Mendoza, in turn, filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and suspension. Procedural History: The Labor Arbiter ordered the Company to reinstate Mendoza without backwages. Mendoza appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) regarding the denial of backwages. The NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter, finding Mendoza was illegally dismissed and ordering reinstatement with full backwages. The Company appealed to the Secretary of Labor. The Deputy Minister of Labor, by authority of the Minister, modified the NLRC decision, ordering the Company to pay Mendoza backwages from March 7, 1977, to December 31, 1977 (when the Company ceased operations), and separation pay. The Petition: The Company filed a petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction, seeking to annul the NLRC proceedings, arguing Mendoza was not dismissed but had abandoned his job, and that the NLRC's finding of illegal dismissal was without factual basis. The Company also challenged the jurisdiction of the Deputy Minister of Labor.
Issue(s)
Whether the Company's charge of abandonment against respondent Mendoza was legally tenable. Whether the NLRC and the Deputy Minister of Labor erred in finding that Mendoza was illegally dismissed. Whether the Deputy Minister of Labor had the authority to decide appeals from the NLRC.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED. The temporary restraining order is LIFTED. Costs against the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the Company's charge of abandonment was legally tenable: The Court held that the procedure followed by the petitioner in seeking a declaration of abandonment was erroneous. Under the rules, an application for clearance to dismiss was required, not merely a report, unless specific exceptions applied. Even assuming abandonment only required a report, the evidence did not support the claim. The NLRC found that Mendoza attempted to report for work on March 7, 1977, but was refused work by the shop manager due to superior instructions. He was given a "run-around" and denied work on subsequent attempts. His letter inquiring about his employment status was never answered. This conduct by the Company negates the claim of abandonment and good faith. Abandonment requires a deliberate intent to discontinue employment without intention of returning, which mere absence does not satisfy. Mendoza's immediate filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal controverts the claim of abandonment, as it would be illogical to abandon work and then seek reinstatement. On whether the NLRC and the Deputy Minister of Labor erred in finding that Mendoza was illegally dismissed: The Court affirmed the findings of the NLRC and the Deputy Minister of Labor. The Company's actions, including refusing Mendoza work and giving him a "run-around" after his absence, constituted illegal dismissal. The Court reiterated that unauthorized absence does not amount to gross neglect of duty or abandonment. Mendoza's attendance at a court hearing while claiming sickness, even if considered malingering, did not provide a legal basis for the Company to file a charge of abandonment. Mendoza's explanation that he appeared in court despite not being fully recovered because his case would be dismissed otherwise was accepted. The filing of the abandonment charge was seen as an attempt to give color of validity to the Company's unilateral act of severing the employment relationship. On whether the Deputy Minister of Labor had the authority to decide appeals from the NLRC: The Court found this contention without merit. The authority of Undersecretaries includes performing quasi-judicial duties delegated by law or department heads. Citing the Administrative Code and a U.S. Supreme Court case, the Court held that Undersecretaries can perform such duties as prescribed by the Secretary, and this includes quasi-judicial functions. The clear intention of such provisions is to allow the Secretary to delegate duties for governmental efficiency, and it is not for the courts to narrow the scope of such delegation based on conjecture.
Main Doctrine
An employer's act of filing a charge of abandonment against an employee who desires to preserve the employer-employee relationship, coupled with the employer's act of denying work and giving the employee a "run-around" when attempting to resume work, constitutes illegal dismissal, not abandonment.