Angeles v. Fernandez
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Respondent Lordy Fernandez was employed as a secretary and "all-around worker" by petitioner Zenaida Angeles in her tailoring and dress shop, "Bon Chic," from July 1992 to May 1998. On January 19, 2000, Fernandez filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, non-payment of premium pay for holidays and rest days, night shift differential, 13th month pay, and service incentive leave pay. Fernandez alleged that she was dismissed without cause and in violation of due process in May 1998, having committed no offense and not being notified of any reason or investigated prior to dismissal. She was receiving a monthly salary of P6,000. Angeles denied illegal dismissal, claiming Fernandez abandoned her job in May 1998 despite being treated like family, receiving free board and lodging, and a salary above the minimum wage. Angeles further alleged that upon Fernandez's departure, "Bon Chic's" money and records went missing, leading to the closure of the shop in 1998. 2. Procedural History: The Labor Arbiter ruled that Fernandez was illegally dismissed and ordered Angeles to pay backwages and separation pay. The NLRC reversed this, finding credible Angeles' claim of abandonment due to Fernandez eloping with a younger man and being instigated by another employee to file claims. The NLRC noted the 20-month delay in filing the complaint as consistent with abandonment and pointed to Fernandez's employment with another company as further proof. The Court of Appeals reinstated the Labor Arbiter's decision, holding that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in considering belated affidavits with new allegations without giving Fernandez a chance to rebut them. The appellate court found these affidavits self-serving and ruled that Angeles failed to establish clear evidence of abandonment, nor did she inform Fernandez of the charge or give her an opportunity to explain. 3. The Petition: Petitioner Zenaida Angeles sought to annul the Court of Appeals' decision, arguing that the NLRC did not err in considering the evidence presented for the first time on appeal, and that the Court of Appeals erred in finding that respondent Fernandez was not guilty of abandonment.
Issue(s)
Whether the National Labor Relations Commission committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of or excess of jurisdiction when it considered petitioner’s evidence for the first time on appeal. Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in finding that respondent is not guilty of abandonment.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. Petitioner is ORDERED to pay respondent full backwages, allowances and other benefits for four months, plus separation pay equivalent to one-half month pay for each of respondent’s six-year employment. The Labor Arbiter is ORDERED to compute and execute the said award.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the NLRC considering evidence for the first time on appeal: The Court reiterated that the NLRC is not precluded from receiving evidence, even for the first time on appeal, because technical rules of procedure are not binding in labor cases. This rule applies to both employees and employers, and labor officials are directed to use all reasonable means to ascertain facts speedily and objectively. However, any delay in the submission of evidence must be clearly explained and adequately prove the employer's allegation of the cause for termination. In this case, petitioner failed to explain the belated submission of affidavits from Anita Claveria, Rolando C. Villanueva, Bartolome Angeles, and Merline Jumawan, rendering her plea for admission in the interest of truth, justice, and fair play without merit. The Court found that even if these affidavits were considered, they did not prove abandonment. On the issue of abandonment of employment: The Court affirmed the findings of the Labor Arbiter and the Court of Appeals that respondent Fernandez did not abandon her job. To constitute abandonment, two elements must concur: (1) the failure to report for work or absence without valid or justifiable reason; and (2) a clear intention to sever the employee-employer relationship, manifested by overt acts. The Court found that petitioner failed to show any overt act demonstrating Fernandez's clear intention to sever her employment. The belatedly submitted affidavits did not prove abandonment; allegations of clandestine visits or inducement to complain due to having a child to support were deemed not pertinent. Furthermore, petitioner's claim of earnest efforts to convince respondent to return contradicted her allegation of failing to locate respondent. Fernandez's prayer for reinstatement in her position paper manifested her intention to return. The filing of the complaint 20 months after dismissal was within the four-year prescriptive period, and the Court has previously considered lapses of several months before filing a complaint for illegal dismissal as non-issues. Additionally, petitioner failed to serve respondent the required written notices of the charge of abandonment and the decision to terminate, thus violating due process.
Main Doctrine
The NLRC is not precluded from receiving evidence for the first time on appeal, as technical rules of procedure are not binding in labor cases. However, any delay in the submission of evidence must be clearly explained and adequately prove the employer's allegation of the cause for termination. Abandonment requires a clear intention to sever the employment relationship, manifested by overt acts, and not merely a failure to report for work without valid reason.