Kingsize Manufacturing Corp. v. National Labor Relations Commission
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Private respondents, employees of petitioner Kingsize Manufacturing Corp., were dismissed at various times between June 1987 and January 1988 for alleged abandonment of work. Petitioners' agent, Charlie Co, prevented them from entering the workplace when they presented themselves. Within days, most private respondents secured employment at another garment factory, First General Marketing Corporation (FGMC), with some being employed on the same day they were dismissed. Procedural History: Private respondents filed complaints for illegal dismissal, underpayment of wages, and other monetary claims. The Labor Arbiter found that most private respondents had quit to work for FGMC, thus dismissing their claim for reinstatement but granting some monetary awards to specific complainants. The Labor Arbiter found Juancho Bognot to have been illegally dismissed and ordered his reinstatement with backwages. The Labor Arbiter's decision was appealed by both parties. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the Labor Arbiter's decision, finding petitioners guilty of illegal dismissal and ordering the reinstatement of all respondents without backwages, except for Juancho Bognot whose award was affirmed. The NLRC later granted the motion for reconsideration of five complainants, ordering them to be paid backwages equivalent to three years of their salaries. Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC in its findings regarding abandonment, its reliance on private respondents' claims of earning more from petitioners, its disregard of the delay in filing complaints, and its order of reinstatement despite some respondents only praying for separation pay.
Issue(s)
Whether the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in finding that petitioners were guilty of illegal dismissal and whether the employees abandoned their work. Whether the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in ordering the reinstatement of all respondents, considering that some only prayed for separation pay in their appeal. Whether the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in including complainants who did not appeal the Labor Arbiter's decision in its reversal.
Ruling
The petition is granted in part. The decision of the NLRC is affirmed with the modification that instead of ordering reinstatement for Anacorita Valde, Judy Dreu, Lydia Llobit, Marlene Bognot, and Celsa Dizon, they should be granted separation pay at the rate of one month for every year of service. The reinstatement of Juancho Bognot is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of illegal dismissal and abandonment of work: The Court held that abandonment of work requires a clear and deliberate intent to discontinue employment without any intention of returning, and mere absence is insufficient. The petitioners failed to prove this intent. The fact that private respondents found new employment shortly after dismissal does not, by itself, prove abandonment, especially when considered with countervailing evidence such as being barred from re-entering the premises, earning more from the original employer, and having attained security of tenure. The Court emphasized that the employer has the burden of proving abandonment, and this burden was not met by the petitioners. The Court also noted the lack of proper notice of dismissal, which is a requirement of due process. On the NLRC's order of reinstatement for those who appealed for separation pay: The Court found merit in the petitioners' contention that the NLRC exceeded its jurisdiction in ordering reinstatement for five complainants who, in their appeal from the Labor Arbiter's decision, had reduced their demand to separation pay. The Court reasoned that the NLRC should have limited its decision to the reliefs prayed for by the appealing parties. The general rule for illegal dismissal is reinstatement and backwages, but separation pay is an alternative when reinstatement is not viable or when the employee opts for it. In this instance, the employees' appeal for separation pay indicated a potential change of mind regarding reinstatement. On the inclusion of non-appealing complainants: The Court agreed with the Solicitor General that the NLRC should have limited its decision to the five complainants who appealed the Labor Arbiter's decision. For the other six respondents who did not appeal, the Labor Arbiter's decision had become final and executory. Therefore, the NLRC acted in excess of its jurisdiction in including these complainants in its reversed decision, as their claims were no longer subject to review by the NLRC.
Main Doctrine
While abandonment of work requires a clear and deliberate intent to discontinue employment, mere absence is insufficient; it must be accompanied by overt acts pointing to the employee's unwillingness to work. Furthermore, employers must provide two notices to employees before dismissal: one apprising them of the grounds for dismissal and a subsequent notice informing them of the decision to dismiss, as a requirement of due process.