Ordonez Construction v. Nicdao
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondents Imelda Nicdao (Secretary/Cashier), Rodrigo Sicat, and Romeo Bautista (truck drivers) claimed to have been employed by petitioners L.C. Ordoñez Construction, et al. in June 1985, February 1981, and March 1988, respectively. In January 1993, respondents inquired about delayed salaries and non-payment of benefits. Petitioners allegedly became infuriated and threatened termination. Nicdao took a leave of absence from January 28, 1993. Upon reporting for work on February 1, 1993, they were informed their services were no longer needed and were barred from the premises. Consequently, respondents filed a complaint for illegal dismissal on February 5, 1993. Procedural History: The Labor Arbiter found the dismissal illegal and ordered petitioners to pay respondents separation pay and other benefits. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed this, setting aside the Labor Arbiter's decision and ordering payment of only 13th month pay, service incentive leave pay, and indemnity/separation pay. Petitioners then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA set aside the NLRC's decision and reinstated the Labor Arbiter's decision, with a modification regarding the computation of 13th month pay and the inclusion of attorney's fees. Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: Petitioners sought review of the CA's decision, arguing that the CA abused its discretion in re-examining the NLRC's findings of fact and that the CA decided the dismissal issue contrary to law and settled jurisprudence by not considering abandonment by Nicdao and by treating the dismissal of Bautista and Sicat as illegal.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in reviewing the factual findings of the NLRC. Whether respondent Imelda Nicdao abandoned her employment. Whether the dismissal of respondents Romeo Bautista and Rodrigo Sicat was legal.
Ruling
The petition is partly granted. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated March 13, 2001, is affirmed with the modification that separation pay and other benefits to which respondent Imelda Nicdao is entitled should be computed only from May 1989, the date of her employment.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the CA reviewing NLRC's factual findings: The Court held that the CA committed no error in reviewing the findings of fact of the NLRC. It is a settled legal tenet that when the factual findings of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC are diametrically opposed, and this disparity is called into question, a re-examination of the factual findings is necessary to ascertain which opinion should be sustained. Although factual findings of administrative bodies are generally given great weight, a dis-harmony between the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC opens the door for review by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the CA correctly reviewed the records to determine which opinion was supported by substantial evidence. On the issue of respondent Imelda Nicdao's abandonment of work: The Court ruled that petitioners failed to discharge their burden of proof to establish abandonment. The Court found difficulty believing petitioners' allegation that Nicdao filed a leave of absence due to confrontation over misappropriation. The Court noted the lack of convincing evidence, such as a statement from the alleged informant, and that the audit report showing anomalies was completed in March 1993, with no clear indication of when anomalies were first discovered. The Court found Nicdao's narration more credible, that petitioners became infuriated when she questioned delayed salaries and benefits, leading to her termination. Furthermore, the Court highlighted that the estafa case against Nicdao was filed five months after her illegal dismissal complaint, suggesting it was an attempt to create leverage. The Court reiterated that abandonment requires a concurrence of intention to abandon and overt acts, and mere absence, especially when told not to report, does not constitute abandonment. The immediate filing of an illegal dismissal complaint negates abandonment. On the issue of the dismissal of respondents Romeo Bautista and Rodrigo Sicat: The Court found that petitioners failed to present credible proof of any overt acts by Bautista and Sicat to abandon their employment. The Court pointed out that the "show cause" letter sent to one of the complainants was dated April 14, 1993, while the complaint for illegal dismissal was filed on February 5, 1993, and petitioners had already received summons on February 15, 1993. This indicated that the "show cause" letter was a belated attempt to comply with notice requirements. The Court reiterated that the employer bears the burden of proof to show abandonment, and mere absence or failure to report for work is not tantamount to abandonment. The immediate filing of the complaint for illegal dismissal by the respondents clearly showed they had no intention to abandon their employment. The Court also found the argument that the lack of a prayer for reinstatement indicated abandonment to be tenuous, as respondents explained the strained relationship with their employer.
Main Doctrine
The employer bears the burden of proof to establish abandonment of work, which requires proof of deliberate and unjustified refusal to resume employment without intention of returning, accompanied by overt acts demonstrating such intent. Mere absence or failure to report for work, especially when the employee was told not to report, does not constitute abandonment. The immediate filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal negates abandonment.