GSP MANUFACTURING G.R. No. 150454
CORPORATION and
CHARO APACIBLE, Present:
Petitioners,
PUNO, J., Chairperson,
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
- v e r s u s - CORONA,
AZCUNA and
GARCIA,
JJ.
PAULINA CABANBAN,
Respondent. Promulgated:
July 14,
2006
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
CORONA, J.:
This is a petition for review on
certiorari from a decision[1]
and a resolution[2]
of the Court of Appeals.
In brief, the facts of the case follow.[3]
Respondent Paulina Cabanban worked with petitioner GSP Manufacturing Corporation (GSP) as a sewer from February 7, 1985 until her alleged termination on March 1, 1992.
On
June 16, 1992, respondent filed with the National Labor Relations Commission
(NLRC), National Capital Region Arbitration Branch, a complaint against
petitioners for illegal dismissal, non-payment of holiday pay, service
incentive leave pay and 13th month pay.
Respondent
claimed she was terminated by petitioners because she failed to dissuade her
daughter from continuing her employment at the Sylvia Santos Company, a
business competitor of petitioners.
In
their defense, petitioners argued that respondent abandoned her work on March
14, 1992 and that they reported this to the Department of Labor and Employment
on May 15, 1992.
On
May 7, 1993, labor arbiter Melquiades Sol D. del
Rosario found petitioners guilty of illegal dismissal. Petitioners appealed to the NLRC.
On
August 10, 1995, the NLRC issued a resolution affirming in toto the decision of the labor arbiter. Hence, this
petition.
Petitioners vigorously assail the
findings of fact of the Court of Appeals which affirmed those of the labor
arbiter. They claim that these findings,
based solely on statements made by respondent in the affidavit attached to her
position paper, were arrived at arbitrarily.
The petition is without merit.
As petitioners are well aware of,
factual findings of the NLRC, particularly when they are in agreement with
those of the labor arbiter, are deemed binding and conclusive on this
Court. As long as their decisions are
devoid of any unfairness or arbitrariness in their evaluation of the evidence,
all that is left for us to do is stamp our affirmation and declare its
finality.[4] Having perused the records, we find no such
arbitrariness here.
We
would like to reiterate some salient points laid down in our prior
pronouncements concerning abandonment of employment. Abandonment as a just ground for dismissal
requires the deliberate, unjustified refusal of the employee to perform his
employment responsibilities. Mere absence or failure to work, even after notice
to return, is not tantamount to abandonment.[5]
The records are bereft of proof that petitioners even furnished respondent such
notice.
Furthermore, it is a settled doctrine
that the filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal is inconsistent with
abandonment of employment. An employee who takes steps to protest his dismissal
cannot logically be said to have abandoned his work.[6] The filing of such complaint is proof
enough of his desire to return to work, thus negating any suggestion of
abandonment.[7]
Clearly, petitioners’ claim that
respondent’s complaint was “an afterthought,” having been filed a long time
after the date of the supposed abandonment, was utterly without merit. As the Court of Appeals correctly pointed
out, citing the case of Pare v. NLRC,[8]
respondent had four years within which to institute her action for illegal
dismissal. Compared to the six months it took the aggrieved employee in that
case to file his complaint for illegal dismissal, respondent’s 84 days was not
unreasonably long at all.
WHEREFORE,
the petition is hereby DENIED. The assailed decision and resolution of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 51161 are hereby AFFIRMED.
Costs against
petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZAssociate Justice
|
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA
Associate
Justice
|
CANCIO C. GARCIA
I attest that the conclusions in the above Resolution had
been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court’s Division.
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Division
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution
and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in
the above resolution had been reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN
[1] Decision dated January 31, 2001 in CA-G.R. SP No. 51161, penned by Associate Justice Oswaldo D. Agcaoili (now retired) and concurred in by Associate Justices Elvi John S. Asuncion and Mercedes Gozo-Dadole of the Second Division of the Court of Appeals; rollo, pp. 10-16.
[2] Resolution dated September 28, 2001 (affirming the January 31, 2001 CA Decision) in CA-G.R. SP No. 51161, penned by Associate Justice Oswaldo D. Agcaoili (now retired) and concurred in by Associate Justices Elvi John S. Asuncion and Mercedes Gozo-Dadole of the Second Division of the Court of Appeals; id., p. 18.
[3] Id., pp. 11-13.
[4] NYK v. NLRC, 445 Phil. 654 (2003).
[5] R.P. Dinglasan v. Atienza, G.R. No. 156104, 29 June 2004, 433 SCRA 263; Samarca v. Arc-Men Industries, Inc., G.R. No. 146118, 8 October 2003, 413 SCRA 162; Phil. Industrial Security Agency Corp. v. Dapiton, 377 Phil. 951 (1999); Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa Bandolino v. NLRC, 341 Phil. 635 (1997).
[6] Samarca v. Arc-Men Industries, Inc., supra; Kams Int’l. v. NLRC, 373 Phil. 950 (1999); Hagonoy Rural Bank, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 122075, 28 January 1998, 285 SCRA 297.
[7] Hagonoy Rural Bank, Inc. v. NLRC, supra.
[8] 376 Phil. 288 (1999).