Philtranco Service Enterprises, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Roberto Nieva, employed as a driver by Philtranco Service Enterprises, Inc. (Philtranco) since April 13, 1977, was assigned to the Legaspi City-Pasay City route. On May 15, 1989, Nieva sideswiped a jeep, damaging it. The owner, a PC colonel, had Nieva arrested and a criminal complaint filed. Philtranco secured Nieva's bail bond and suspended him for thirty days. Upon returning to work after his suspension, Nieva was re-arrested because his bail bond was allegedly fake. Philtranco advised Nieva to refrain from driving until a settlement was reached with the jeep owner to avoid re-arrest. Nieva reported for work but was told to wait. The case was settled on July 20, 1991, with Philtranco paying for the damages. Three days later, Nieva reported for work but was asked to file a new application, being considered no longer an employee due to alleged absence without leave from October 19 to November 20, 1989. Procedural History: Nieva filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and 13th month pay with the NLRC National Capital Region Arbitration Branch. Philtranco initially failed to appear at hearings, prompting a warning of default. Philtranco eventually filed a position paper with a motion to dismiss, arguing improper venue. The Labor Arbiter denied this motion. Nieva presented evidence. Philtranco filed a second motion to dismiss, which was also denied. Philtranco then presented evidence of alleged abandonment. The Labor Arbiter found Nieva's absences to be with Philtranco's permission, negating abandonment, and awarded back wages and separation pay. The NLRC affirmed this decision. Philtranco's motion for reconsideration was denied, leading to the present petition for certiorari. The Petition: Philtranco seeks reversal of the NLRC resolution, alleging grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in denying the motion to dismiss based on improper venue, in ruling for back wages and separation pay, and in its findings of fact regarding non-abandonment.
Issue(s)
Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction when it denied Philtranco's motion to dismiss the complaint based on improper venue. Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction in ruling that Philtranco should be imposed back wages and separation pay, and whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction as to its findings of facts and when it confirmed the labor arbiter's decision that there was no abandonment of work by the private respondent and that the latter showed his persistence to return to work.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed for lack of merit. The NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of improper venue: The Court held that the question of venue pertains to the convenience of the parties and not the merits of the case. Provisions on venue are for the benefit of the worker, who may waive this benefit. The Court reiterated that Section 1(a), Rule IV of the New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC is permissive, allowing for a different venue when substantial justice demands it. Furthermore, considering that Nieva was assigned to the Legaspi City-Pasay City route, Manila could be considered part of his territorial workplace, making the filing of the complaint with the National Capital Region Arbitration Branch proper, consistent with the ruling in Sulpicio Lines, Inc. vs. NLRC. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to dismiss on this ground. On the issues of back wages, separation pay, non-abandonment of work, and the NLRC's findings of fact: The Court emphasized that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is limited to reviewing grave abuse of discretion or acts without or in excess of jurisdiction, and does not allow for re-examination of the correctness of the evaluation of evidence. The Court found that the findings of fact of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC were supported by evidence on record and thus accorded due respect and finality. The Labor Arbiter's finding that Nieva's absences were with Philtranco's permission, as he was instructed not to drive until his case was settled, was not refuted by Philtranco. The immediate filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal was deemed inconsistent with abandonment of work, as held in previous cases such as PASUDECO vs. NLRC. Therefore, the NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in affirming the award of back wages and separation pay.
Main Doctrine
The NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying a motion to dismiss based on improper venue when the chosen venue was not oppressive to the employer and the employee had waived the benefit of the rule on venue. Furthermore, the NLRC's findings of fact regarding non-abandonment of work, when supported by evidence, are accorded due respect and finality.