Columbus Philippines Bus Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Columbus Philippines Bus Corporation operates a bus service. Private respondents, Roman and Zenaida Domasig, were employed as a driver and conductress, respectively. They allege that their employment was terminated on January 21 and 22, 1992, due to their involvement in forming a labor union, the Columbus Workers Union, affiliated with the National Federation of Labor. The Domasigs claim their dismissal was an act of unfair labor practice, stemming from their efforts to improve working conditions, which included long hours, alleged illegal deductions, and lack of job security. They further assert that the company pressured employees to withdraw their union membership, and those who refused, like themselves, were dismissed without notice or explanation. Procedural History: The private respondents filed complaints for unfair labor practice, illegal dismissal, illegal deductions, and non-payment of benefits with the Department of Labor and Employment. These cases were assigned to Labor Arbiter Ceferina J. Diosana. The Labor Arbiter found the Domasigs to have been illegally dismissed and ordered their reinstatement with backpay. The petitioner appealed this decision to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). The NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter's decision in its entirety. The petitioner then filed the instant petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, challenging the NLRC's resolution. The Petition: This case comes before the Supreme Court via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, seeking to nullify the NLRC's resolution. The petitioner argues that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion by affirming the Labor Arbiter's decision, which it claims violated due process. Specifically, the petitioner contends it did not receive notice of the scheduled hearings, leading to an ex-parte decision. It asserts that service by registered mail should only be considered complete upon actual receipt, not merely upon the expiration of the unclaimed period, citing Johnson & Johnson (Phils.) Inc. v. Court of Appeals. The petitioner also questions the NLRC's finding of illegal dismissal, arguing that the Domasigs were not regular employees and had abandoned their jobs. The Supreme Court, however, found the petitioner's arguments to be without basis, noting the presumption of regularity in official proceedings and the petitioner's failure to adequately rebut the evidence of proper service and the findings of illegal dismissal.
Issue(s)
Whether the private respondents were illegally dismissed. Whether the petitioner was denied due process due to alleged lack of notice and opportunity to be heard. Whether the private respondents were regular employees. Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the Labor Arbiter's decision.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED. The Resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission is AFFIRMED. The computation of backwages is REMANDED to the Labor Arbiter.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of illegal dismissal: The Court affirmed the findings of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC that the private respondents were illegally dismissed. The Court held that the employer bears the burden of proving that a dismissal was for a valid and authorized cause. Petitioner failed to present substantial evidence to justify the termination of the private respondents' employment. The Court noted that the private respondents' absences were supported by valid reasons, as they were not given bus assignments after expressing their intent to form a union. Furthermore, their immediate filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal demonstrated no intention to sever their employment relationship, negating the claim of abandonment. On the issue of due process and denial of hearing: The Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC. The petitioner was afforded ample opportunity to present its case, having filed a manifestation and motion to reset a hearing and subsequently failing to appear on the re-scheduled date. The Court reiterated that service by registered mail is complete upon receipt by the addressee or his agent, or after five days from the first notice if the addressee fails to claim the mail, as per the Revised Rules of Procedure of the NLRC. The petitioner's claim of not receiving notices was unsubstantiated, and the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty was not rebutted. The Court also clarified that the holding of a formal hearing is discretionary with the Labor Arbiter, and due process is satisfied when parties are given the opportunity to submit position papers and supporting documents. On the issue of regular employment: The Court found that the private respondents were regular employees. Their work as drivers and conductresses was necessary and desirable in the operation of the petitioner's bus business. The Court emphasized that the determination of regular employment is based on the nature of the work and its relation to the employer's business, not solely on the manner of computing wages or the intermittent nature of performance. The performance of a job for at least one year, even intermittently, is sufficient evidence of necessity and indispensability to the business, thus deeming the employment regular. On the issue of grave abuse of discretion: The Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC. The NLRC considered the petitioner's belatedly filed position paper and found that it did not sufficiently controvert the private respondents' claims. The Court reiterated that the factual findings of quasi-judicial agencies like the NLRC, which have acquired expertise, are generally accorded respect and finality, and will only be set aside upon a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion or arbitrariness.
Main Doctrine
The employer bears the burden of proving that a dismissal was for a valid and authorized cause. Failure to discharge this duty renders the dismissal illegal. Abandonment of work requires not only absence but also a clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship, manifested by overt acts.