Diversified Security v. Bautista
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Alicia V. Bautista was employed by petitioner Diversified Security, Inc. (DSI) as an Executive Pool Secretary. Petitioner alleged that respondent was incompetent, assigning her menial jobs and transferring her to a branch office, where she allegedly failed to report. Respondent claimed she was dismissed on October 31, 1997, without valid reason, notice, or hearing. Petitioner countered that respondent was not dismissed but voluntarily severed her employment. Procedural History: The Labor Arbiter ordered petitioner to pay respondent separation pay and proportionate 13th-month pay. The NLRC affirmed the illegal dismissal finding, modifying the award to include full backwages and severance compensation. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the NLRC decision but deleted the liability of individual petitioners. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: Petitioner sought review, arguing the CA erred in finding illegal dismissal, in holding petitioner dismissed respondent on the ground of abandonment (which was not raised as a defense), in computing separation pay from 1990 when respondent was employed in 1996, and in awarding full backwages and 13th-month pay.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly upheld the National Labor Relations Commission's finding of illegal dismissal. Whether the computation of awards based on a 1990 employment start date was proper.
Ruling
The petition is unmeritorious. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are affirmed. Petitioner is ordered to pay respondent separation pay equivalent to one month's pay for every year of service and backwages, computed from the time compensation was withheld up to the time of payment. The case is remanded to the Labor Arbiter for proper computation.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court affirmed the findings of the LA, the NLRC, and the CA that respondent was illegally dismissed. The Court held that factual findings of quasi-judicial bodies affirmed by the CA are generally final and conclusive upon the Supreme Court, as it is not a trier of facts. Petitioner's admission in its position paper that it considered respondent 'resigned' in November 1997 bolstered respondent's claim of dismissal on October 31, 1997. The Court rejected petitioner's argument that the respondent simply stopped reporting for work, stating it is 'not in accord with human nature' for an employee to file a labor case unless they were actually terminated. Regarding the defense of abandonment, the Court ruled that the petitioner failed to satisfy the legal requirements to establish it. Specifically, the petitioner failed to prove it sent the required two notices to the respondent's last known address, which is a mandatory due process requirement for termination based on abandonment. Consequently, without proof of abandonment or just cause, the termination was held to be illegal. On Issue 2: The Court sustained the finding that respondent had been an employee of petitioner since 1990. The NLRC and the CA consistently found that respondent’s service reckoned from February 1990 to October 1997, and the Supreme Court found no cogent reason to deviate from these factual findings. Under Article 279 of the Labor Code, an illegally dismissed employee is entitled to reinstatement and full backwages. However, where reinstatement is no longer feasible due to 'strained relations' between the employer and the employee, the Court applies the established rule that separation pay equivalent to one month's salary for every year of service may be awarded as an alternative. Since the lower courts determined that separation pay was the appropriate relief, and the date of employment was established as 1990, the computation of backwages and separation pay from that period was affirmed as correct.
Main Doctrine
Findings of fact of quasi-judicial bodies, like the NLRC, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are conclusive and accorded finality, barring any justifiable reason to deviate. An employer claiming abandonment must prove it through proper notice and hearing requirements; failure to do so renders the dismissal illegal.