Belaunzaran v. National Labor Relations Commission
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Diana E. Belaunzaran was hired by Casino Espanol de Cebu, Inc. on February 1, 1984, and was promoted to General Manager. She applied for and was granted vacation leave from September 9, 1991, to October 15, 1991. While on leave in Spain, she requested an extension until November 10, 1991, which was disapproved. She returned to the Philippines on November 12, 1991, and reported for work on November 16, 1991. Two days later, she was asked by management to resign, with an offer of separation pay and 13th-month pay. This proposal stemmed from complaints by employees regarding her failure to investigate the loss of stocks and supplies. During a meeting with the Board of Directors on November 18, 1991, she was informed of the complaints and advised to resign due to strained relations with subordinates. She appeared amenable but never reported back to work. On December 14, 1991, she filed a sick leave notice effective November 27, 1991, until December 31, 1991, which was disapproved. Private respondents pointed out her unauthorized absences and failure to set a good example, demanding her resignation or an explanation for the complaints. Procedural History: Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. Private respondents claimed abandonment or, alternatively, dismissal for cause due to unauthorized absences and loss of trust and confidence. The Labor Arbiter declared respondents not guilty of illegal dismissal and the complainant not guilty of abandonment, but directed the firm to pay separation pay and 13th-month pay. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the Labor Arbiter's decision in toto. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, Rules of Court, seeking to set aside the NLRC decision, alleging that the NLRC acted whimsically or capriciously and with grave abuse of discretion in disregarding evidence.
Issue(s)
Whether the NLRC acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in affirming the Labor Arbiter's decision and whether the petitioner was illegally dismissed. Whether the petitioner abandoned her job. Whether the award of separation pay and 13th-month pay was proper, and whether the claim for backwages, moral, and exemplary damages has basis.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The decision of the respondent NLRC dated December 8, 1994, is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion and illegal dismissal: The Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC. It reiterated the well-settled rule that factual findings of the NLRC, especially when coinciding with those of the Labor Arbiter, are accorded respect and finality if supported by substantial evidence. In this case, both the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC found that the petitioner was not illegally dismissed. The proposal for her to resign was considered an act of concern rather than an intent to dismiss, given the complaints against her and the strained relations with her subordinates. The Court noted that the record was bereft of evidence showing that respondents notified or informed the petitioner that she had been dismissed. The petitioner's belief that she was dismissed was based on her mistaken impression that the hired consultant, Eduardo Garcia, was her replacement, when in fact he was hired merely as a consultant to oversee preparations for upcoming events due to her prolonged absence. The Court found that the petitioner's conclusion was based on presumption or conjecture, as evidenced by her testimony where she admitted her belief was based on her feeling upon seeing Mr. Garcia in her office and that she did not ascertain the reason for his presence or inquire from management. On the issue of abandonment: The Court agreed with the Labor Arbiter that the petitioner was not guilty of abandonment. However, it noted that her prolonged unauthorized leave and failure to report back to work after the meeting with the Board of Directors did lend credence to the private respondents' claim that they had lost trust and confidence in her. The Court also pointed out that when asked to submit her resignation or explanation, she immediately filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, thereby preempting any investigation. The Court stated that there is nothing illegal in allowing an employee to resign instead of being separated for just cause, as it avoids smearing the employment record. On the award of separation pay and 13th-month pay and the claim for damages: Since there was no dismissal nor abandonment, the status quo should have been maintained. However, the Court noted that reinstatement was no longer feasible due to deep antagonism between the petitioner and private respondents. Therefore, in lieu of reinstatement, the petitioner was correctly awarded separation pay equivalent to one month's pay for every year of service plus the 13th-month pay, which was based on the original offer of the private respondents. This award was deemed appropriate given the circumstances and the findings of the Labor Arbiter and NLRC. The Court found no basis for the claims of backwages, moral, and exemplary damages. Backwages are granted on grounds of equity for earnings lost due to illegal dismissal. Moral damages are recoverable when dismissal is attended by bad faith or is oppressive, and exemplary damages are awarded if the dismissal was wanton, oppressive, or malevolent. Since the Court affirmed that the petitioner was not dismissed, these damages were not warranted. The Court emphasized that none of the grounds for awarding such damages were present in this case precisely because the petitioner was not dismissed by the private respondents.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court affirmed the NLRC's decision, holding that the petitioner was not illegally dismissed, nor did she abandon her job. The Court reiterated that factual findings of the NLRC, when supported by substantial evidence and coinciding with those of the Labor Arbiter, are accorded respect and finality. The Court also emphasized the procedural requirement of filing a motion for reconsideration before filing a petition for certiorari, absent justifiable reasons.