Asian Terminals v. National Labor Relations Commission
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Romeo Labrague, a stevedore employed since the 1980s, failed to report for work starting September 9, 1993, due to his arrest and detention for a killing incident. After more than a year of absence, Asian Terminals, Inc. (ATI) sent him notices requiring an explanation for his prolonged absence. On February 8, 1995, ATI issued a memorandum terminating his employment for absence without official leave, citing his detention. Procedural History: Upon his release and acquittal, Labrague reported for work on July 3, 1996, but was advised to file a new application. He filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ordered ATI to pay separation pay, 13th month pay, and service incentive leave pay. The NLRC modified this, ordering ATI to pay separation pay but deleting the awards for 13th month pay and service incentive leave pay. ATI's motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: ATI filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the NLRC decision with modification, ordering ATI to pay separation pay based on the CBA and backwages from July 1996 to the finality of its decision. ATI's motion for reconsideration was denied. Hence, the present petition for review on certiorari arguing that the CA erred in declaring the dismissal illegal despite the prolonged unauthorized absences.
Issue(s)
Whether the prolonged absence of respondent Romeo Labrague due to detention constitutes abandonment of employment, justifying his dismissal. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in awarding backwages despite the NLRC decision not awarding them and the respondent not appealing that specific deletion. Whether Atty. Rodolfo G. Corvite, Jr. should be held jointly and severally liable with Asian Terminals, Inc.
Ruling
The petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The Decision dated January 23, 2003, and the May 23, 2004 Resolution of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED with the further MODIFICATION that the solidary liability of petitioner Atty. Rodolfo G. Corvite, Jr. is DELETED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of illegal dismissal due to prolonged absence: The Court held that the dismissal of respondent Romeo Labrague was illegal. The Court reiterated that for abandonment to be a valid ground for dismissal, two elements must concur: (1) the employee must have failed to report for work or must have been absent without valid or justifiable reason, and (2) there must have been a clear intention on the part of the employee to sever the employer-employee relationship, manifested by overt acts. The Court found that Labrague's absence was due to his detention, which was known to petitioners as evidenced by their termination notice. Furthermore, his detention was later found to be without basis, as the criminal charge was dismissed for lack of evidence. Therefore, his absences were involuntary, excusable, and not constitutive of abandonment. The Court cited Magtoto v. National Labor Relations Commission, Pedroso v. Castro, and Standard Electric Manufacturing Corporation v. Standard Electric Employees Union-NAFLU-KMU in support of this ruling, emphasizing that absences due to baseless detention are not equivalent to abandonment. The Court concluded that the Court of Appeals correctly held the dismissal to be illegal. On the award of backwages: The Court affirmed the CA's award of backwages. It clarified that even if the NLRC did not award backwages and the respondent did not appeal that specific deletion, the Court of Appeals has the authority to award backwages to serve the interest of justice. The Court cited St. Michael's Institute v. Santos, stating that the award of backwages is a legal consequence of a finding of illegal dismissal and a substantive right that cannot be prejudiced by mere procedural lapses. Article 279 of the Labor Code mandates both reinstatement (or separation pay) and backwages for illegally dismissed employees. The Court emphasized that the award of backwages is a distinct relief intended to alleviate economic damage and is not barred by the award of separation pay. On the solidary liability of Atty. Rodolfo G. Corvite, Jr.: The Court modified the CA's ruling regarding the solidary liability of Atty. Corvite, Jr. The Court agreed with ATI's view that absent a distinct finding of bad faith or evident malice on the part of Atty. Corvite, Jr. in terminating the employment, he should not be held solidarily liable with the employer for the monetary award. The Court reasoned that while Atty. Corvite, Jr. was involved in the termination process, there was no specific finding of personal bad faith or malice that would warrant holding him jointly and severally liable with the corporate employer.
Main Doctrine
Absences incurred due to detention for a criminal charge that is later dismissed for lack of evidence are considered involuntary, excusable, and do not constitute abandonment, making the subsequent dismissal illegal.