Bonotan v. National Labor Relations Commission
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Mercedes M. Bonotan, a food checker at Barrio Fiesta—Ermita Branch, alleged that management prevented her from performing union duties and subsequently dismissed her on May 21, 1990, due to her union activities. She filed a complaint for unfair labor practice and illegal dismissal. The private respondent, Bonifacio Ongpauco, owner of Barrio Fiesta, countered that petitioner was suspended for ten days for insubordination after an altercation with the floor manager and subsequently abandoned her job by failing to report for work after her suspension and refusing to return. Procedural History: Petitioner filed a complaint for unfair labor practice and illegal dismissal on August 15, 1990. Labor Arbiter Ricardo C. Nora ruled in favor of the petitioner, finding her to have been illegally dismissed. Upon appeal by the private respondent, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), Second Division, reversed the Labor Arbiter's decision. The NLRC held that petitioner was not dismissed but had abandoned her job, ordering her to report back to work without backwages, with the caveat that failure to do so would be considered abandonment. The Petition: Petitioner seeks reversal of the NLRC's decision through a petition for certiorari. She contends that the NLRC lacked jurisdiction to entertain the private respondent's appeal due to the absence of an appeal bond and untimely filing. Furthermore, she argues that the NLRC gravely erred in reversing the Labor Arbiter's decision by holding that she was not dismissed, that she had abandoned her work, and that her complaint was belatedly filed. The petition asserts that her dismissal was due to union activities and that she had no notice of her suspension.
Issue(s)
Whether the NLRC had jurisdiction to entertain private respondent's appeal. Whether the NLRC gravely erred and/or abused its discretion in reversing the Labor Arbiter's decision by holding that petitioner was not dismissed, had abandoned her work, and had belatedly filed her complaint; and if the penalty imposed was appropriate.
Ruling
The petition is denied for lack of showing of any grave abuse of discretion on the part of the public respondent NLRC. The impugned decision of the public respondent is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the NLRC's jurisdiction to entertain the appeal: The Court found that the NLRC had jurisdiction to entertain private respondent's appeal. Petitioner's claim that no appeal bond was filed was contradicted by the records, which showed that a supersedeas bond was duly filed with Philippine Charter Insurance Corporation as surety. Furthermore, the appeal was filed on time, as evidenced by the date of receipt of the Labor Arbiter's decision indicated in the appeal itself. The Court noted that petitioner's counsel may have overlooked this detail in the appeal document. On whether petitioner was dismissed or had abandoned her work, and the appropriateness of the penalty: The Court held that the evidence on record repudiated petitioner's claim of illegal dismissal due to union activities. Petitioner's charge of union busting and illegal dismissal was vague and lacked substantial evidence or specific circumstances to prove her accusations. Her claim of having no notice of her suspension was also belied by the evidence. The altercation with the manager on May 21, 1990, led to a Memorandum of suspension for insubordination, which petitioner refused to acknowledge. Her failure to report for work on May 22, 1990, the first day of her suspension, without explanation or leave, indicated knowledge of her suspension. Even if the Memorandum was not formally served, the subsequent actions of the employer, including sending a representative to her residence after the suspension period and a final letter requiring an explanation for her continued absence, constituted substantial compliance with notice and hearing requirements. Petitioner's continued absence and failure to respond, followed by her demand for separation pay two months later, clearly demonstrated an intention to abandon her job. The Court emphasized that abandonment requires clear and convincing evidence of intent to abandon and overt acts from which such intent can be inferred, both of which were sufficiently proven by the private respondent. While affirming the NLRC's finding of abandonment, the Court considered petitioner's twenty-six years of service and the absence of any previous violations. Citing Sampang v. Inciong, the Court found that dismissal would be too severe a penalty. Therefore, ordering her to return to work without backwages, as decreed by the NLRC, was deemed just and equitable.
Main Doctrine
An employee who fails to report for work after a suspension, refuses to acknowledge receipt of a suspension notice, and does not provide a satisfactory explanation for her continued absence, despite repeated requests to return to work and warnings of abandonment, may be deemed to have abandoned her employment. The NLRC's finding of abandonment, supported by substantial evidence, will be accorded finality.