Metro Transit Organization, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Private respondent Victorio T. Turing, a train operator for petitioner Metro Transit Organization, Inc., was dismissed on March 29, 1990, for abandonment of work. Turing had previously been suspended for 10 days of absence without leave in December 1989. He applied for a three-day leave of absence from February 17 to 21, 1990, but failed to report for work thereafter. Despite a social worker's visit and his assurance to return on March 15, 1990, and his actual return on March 12, 1990, explaining domestic problems due to his wife leaving him and their six children, he was dismissed. Procedural History: The Labor Arbiter found Turing's dismissal illegal and ordered reinstatement with backwages, but found another employee, Reynaldo C. Pohol, to have been dismissed for just cause. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the Labor Arbiter's decision in toto. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied, leading to the present petition for certiorari. The Petition: Petitioner seeks to set aside the NLRC resolution, alleging grave abuse of discretion for denying its right as an employer to discipline its employees, maintaining that Turing was guilty of abandonment of work.
Issue(s)
Whether private respondent Victorio T. Turing was illegally dismissed and guilty of abandonment of work. Whether private respondent Victorio T. Turing was guilty of absence without leave. Whether the award of full backwages is proper.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the resolution of the NLRC with modification. It ruled that private respondent Victorio T. Turing was illegally dismissed for abandonment of work. However, the Court found him guilty of absence without leave and imposed a three-month suspension. The Court modified the award to grant full backwages from June 27, 1990, up to the time of actual reinstatement, less the three-month suspension period.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether private respondent Victorio T. Turing was illegally dismissed and guilty of abandonment of work: The Court held that abandonment of work requires not only absence but also an unequivocal intent to sever the employer-employee relationship, which must be proven by overt acts. The evidence showed that Turing expressed his intention to return to work, reported back, expressed regrets for his absences due to serious personal problems, and filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, all of which negated any intent to abandon his job. The Court reiterated that a timely filing of an illegal dismissal case negates abandonment. Therefore, the dismissal for abandonment was without just cause and illegal. On whether private respondent Victorio T. Turing was guilty of absence without leave: While not guilty of abandonment, the Court found Turing guilty of absence without leave. He had no excuse for failing to inform his employer of the reason for his prolonged absence after his approved leave expired, especially considering his recent suspension for a similar offense. The Court emphasized that even with serious personal problems, an employee has a duty to inform the employer about their absence. Thus, the Court imposed a three-month suspension for this offense. On the award of full backwages: The Court ruled that private respondent is entitled to full backwages in accordance with R.A. No. 6715, which took effect on March 21, 1989. Since his dismissal occurred on March 29, 1990, after the law's effectivity, he is entitled to full backwages from the time his compensation was withheld until his actual reinstatement. However, this award must be reduced by the three-month period corresponding to his suspension for absence without leave. The Court clarified that backwages should include allowances and other benefits and should not be reduced by earnings derived elsewhere by the employee during the period of illegal dismissal.
Main Doctrine
Abandonment of work requires not only absence but also an unequivocal intent to sever the employer-employee relationship, which must be proven by overt acts. A timely filing of an illegal dismissal case negates abandonment. However, absence without leave, even for serious personal reasons, still requires informing the employer, and may warrant suspension.