Jardine Davies, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Salvador Salutin was employed by Jardine Davies, Inc. (JDI) as a demonstrator/agronomist. Salutin filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, seeking reinstatement and backwages, or separation pay and other monetary claims. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Salutin, ordering reinstatement with backwages and other monetary awards. Procedural History: JDI appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), posting a supersedeas bond and reinstating Salutin "on payroll only." The NLRC dismissed JDI's appeal but modified the decision by eliminating certain monetary awards. JDI's motion for reconsideration was denied. JDI filed a first petition for certiorari (G.R. No. 103720) with the Supreme Court, which was dismissed for failure to comply with forum-shopping rules. Subsequently, JDI sent Salutin a letter to report for work at their Bacolod Branch. Salutin reported but left after fifteen minutes and did not return. JDI filed a "Manifestation and Motion" with the NLRC, seeking to have Salutin declared as having abandoned his work. Salutin opposed, claiming he left due to illness and submitted a medical certificate. The NLRC denied JDI's motion, stating that abandonment was a factual matter to be resolved in appropriate proceedings. JDI later filed an ex parte motion to set the "Manifestation and Motion" for hearing, and Salutin filed a motion for release of withheld salary. The NLRC issued a resolution denying JDI's prayer to declare abandonment and also denying Salutin's motion for salary release. The Petition: JDI filed the instant petition for certiorari, assailing the NLRC's resolution dated 22 July 1992, arguing that the NLRC acted with grave abuse of discretion in denying its contention that Salutin should be considered as having abandoned his work.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Salutin should be considered as having abandoned his work. Whether the respondent Commission acted with grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner's contention of abandonment.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED. The questioned resolutions of the National Labor Relations Commission are AFFIRMED, and the temporary restraining order issued by this Court is LIFTED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of abandonment of work: The Court held that abandonment of work requires a deliberate and unjustified refusal to resume employment, which must be clearly shown by overt acts. Mere absence is not sufficient. In this case, Salutin reported for work as directed on September 24, 1991, but left due to illness, which was supported by a medical certificate. He also manifested his desire to resume work on December 11, 1991. These actions contradict the notion of abandonment. The Court reiterated that abandonment is a matter of intention expressed in clearly certain and unequivocal acts, and Salutin's actions demonstrated the opposite. The Court found that Salutin's interim employment with another company during the pendency of the appeal, while he was on payroll reinstatement, did not constitute abandonment. The Court emphasized that the order of immediate reinstatement pending appeal is an ancillary relief to cushion the employee against economic dislocation. If the employee chooses not to report for work pending appeal, they forgo such temporary relief and are not paid salary. The final determination of rights rests on the Commission's ultimate resolution. The Court noted that this issue had already been raised in a previous petition (G.R. No. 103720) which was dismissed, suggesting a possible bar by res judicata or estoppel, but proceeded to rule on the merits to prevent misgiving. On the issue of grave abuse of discretion: The Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC. The NLRC correctly determined that the issue of abandonment was a factual matter requiring appropriate proceedings, especially when controverted. The NLRC's denial of JDI's motion to declare abandonment was based on the evidence presented by Salutin, including his illness and subsequent attempt to return to work. The NLRC's resolution was consistent with the legal definition of abandonment and the purpose of payroll reinstatement pending appeal.
Main Doctrine
Abandonment of work requires a deliberate and unjustified refusal to resume employment, evidenced by overt acts. Mere absence is insufficient. Interim employment during payroll reinstatement does not automatically constitute abandonment, especially when the employee is ailing or has manifested intent to return.