Jackson Building Condominium Corp. v. National Labor Relations Commission
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Private respondent Ferdinand Gumogda was employed as a janitor by petitioner Jackson Building Condominium Corporation. He was granted a 45-day leave of absence from November 15, 1991, to December 29, 1991, to undergo an appendectomy, requiring approximately thirty days of bed rest post-operation. Upon informing petitioner Razul Requesto, president of the corporation, of his fitness to resume work on January 3, 1992, petitioners refused to accept him back, alleging abandonment of work. Consequently, private respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, underpayment of wages, and non-payment of thirteenth-month pay and service-incentive leave pay. Procedural History: The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision in favor of the private respondent, ordering reinstatement and payment of back wages, differential pay, thirteenth-month pay, and service-incentive leave pay for 1991. Petitioners appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), alleging grave abuse of discretion by the Labor Arbiter. The NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter's decision in toto. A subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court to set aside the NLRC's Resolution, which affirmed the Labor Arbiter's Decision. The issues presented were whether private respondent abandoned his work and whether petitioners were liable for the payment of back wages, differential pay, thirteenth-month pay, and service-incentive leave pay for 1991.
Issue(s)
Whether private respondent abandoned his work. Whether petitioners are liable for the payment of private respondent's back wages, differential pay, thirteenth-month pay, and service-incentive leave pay for 1991.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED. The Resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of abandonment of work: The Court held that for abandonment to be a valid ground for dismissal, two requisites must be present: the intention by an employee to abandon coupled with an overt act from which it may be inferred that the employee had no more intention to resume his work. In this case, these requisites were not met. The private respondent's physician advised him to rest for 30 days, and he heeded this advice, even exceeding the recommended period before reporting back for work. His return to work 50 days after his operation indicated his readiness to resume his responsibilities, demonstrating he had fully recovered. Furthermore, the filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal by the private respondent is inconsistent with the allegation of abandonment, as it would be illogical for an employee to abandon his work and then immediately file an action for reinstatement. The Court reiterated that questions of fact already passed upon by the Labor Arbiter and NLRC, when supported by substantial evidence, are not disturbed by the Supreme Court. On the issue of liability for remuneration and benefits: The Court refuted petitioners' argument that private respondent was not entitled to remuneration during his absence based on the principle of "a fair day's work for a fair day's pay." The Court cited Section 31 of R.A. No. 6715, which amended Article 279 of the Labor Code, stating that an employee unjustly dismissed is entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and privileges, and to full back wages, inclusive of allowances, and other benefits or their monetary equivalent from the time compensation was withheld up to actual reinstatement. The award of back wages by the NLRC was predicated on the finding of illegal dismissal, not on the failure to report for work. Additionally, the Court affirmed the entitlement to thirteenth-month pay, citing Presidential Decree No. 851, as amended by Memorandum Order No. 28, which grants this benefit regardless of designation or method of payment.
Main Doctrine
Abandonment of work requires both the intention to abandon and an overt act from which such intention may be inferred; the filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal is inconsistent with abandonment. An employee unjustly dismissed is entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and privileges, and to full back wages and other benefits.