Professional Documents
Culture Documents
You were absent since April 19, 1993 up to May 19, 1993. Verily, it is crystal clear that individual complainant has
indeed abandoned his work. The filing of the complaint on
For your strict compliance. 25 June 1993 or almost two (2) months from the date
complainant failed to report for work affirms the findings
In answer to the aforesaid memo, complainant explained: of this Office and therefore, under the law and
jurisprudence which upholds the right of an employer to
Sa dahilan po na ako ay hindi nakapagpaalam sainyo [sic] discharge an employee who incurs frequent, prolonged
dahil inuwi ko ang mga anak ko sa Samar dahil ang and unexplained absences as being grossly remiss in his
asawa ko ay lumayas at walang mag-aalaga sa mga anak duties to the employer and is therefore, dismissed for
ko. Kaya naman hindi ako naka long distance or cause, (Shoemart, Inc. vs. NLRC, 176 SCRA 385). An
telegrama dahil wala akong pera at ibinili ko ng gamot ay employee is deemed to have abandoned his position or
puro utang pa. to have resigned from the same, whenever he has been
absent therefrom without previous permission of the
employer for three consecutive days or more. This
Finding said explanation unsatisfactory, on 16 June 1993,
justification is the obvious harm to employers interest,
respondent thru its Sales Manager, Mr. Henry A. Chongco
resulting from [sic] the non-availability of the workers
issued a Notice of Termination which reads:
services, (Supra). (underscoring supplied)[5]
We received your letter of explanation dated May 21,
and ruled that complainants termination from his
1993 but we regret to inform you that we do not consider
employment was legal, the same with just or authorized
it valid. You are aware of the company Rules and
cause and due process.[6]
Regulations that absence without permission for six (6)
consecutive working days is considered abandonment of Complainant appealed to the NLRC, alleging that the
work. immediate filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal verily
indicated that he never intended to abandon his work,
In view of the foregoing, the company has decided to then cited Policarpio v. Vicente Dy Sun, Jr.,[7] where the
terminate your employment effective June 17, 1993 for NLRC ruled that prolonged absence does not, by itself,
abandonment of work. necessarily mean abandonment. Accordingly, there must
be a concurrence of intention and overt acts from which it
Hence, this complaint. can be inferred that the employee is no longer interested
in working. Complainant likewise invoked compassion in
Complainants contend that individual complainants the application of sanctions, as dismissal from
dismissal was done without just cause; that it was not employment brings untold hardship and sorrows on the
sufficiently established that individual complainants dependents of the wage earners. In his case, a penalty
absence from April 19, 1993 to June 16, 1993 are less punitive than dismissal could have sufficed.
unjustified; that the penalty of dismissal for such violation
In the assailed decision[8] of 7 October 1994, the
is too severe; that in imposing such penalty, respondent
NLRC modified the Labor Arbiter's decision and held that
should have taken into consideration complainants length
complainants dismissal was invalid for the following
of service and as a first offender, a penalty less punitive
reasons:
will suffice such as suspension for a definite period,
(Position Paper, complainants).
Complainant-appellants prolonged absences, although Applying Itogon-Suyoc Mines, Inc. v. NLRC,[15] the
unauthorized, may not amount to gross neglect or Office of the Solicitor General recommended
abandonment of work to warrant outright termination of complainants reinstatement, which would be more
employment. Dismissal is too severe a penalty. For one, harmonious to the dictates of social justice and equity. It
the mere fact that complainant-appellant is a first further emphasized that the reinstatement should not be
offender must be considered in his favor. Besides, it is considered a condonation of complainants irresponsible
generally impossible for an employee to anticipate when behavior, rather, it must be viewed as a mitigation of the
he would be ill or compelled to attend to some family severity of the penalty of dismissal. Accordingly, it prays
problems or emergency like in the case at bar. that this petition be dismissed.
This petition seeking the nullification of a resolution SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this
of public respondent National Labor Relations 7th day of May, 1991, at Baguio City,
Commission dated April 28, 1994 vividly illustrates why Philippines.
courts should be ever vigilant in the preservation of the
constitutionally enshrined rights of the working
class. Without the protection accorded by our laws and sst. City Prosecutor
the tempering of courts, the natural and historical
Petitioner signed the affidavit but refused to go to the complainant for qualified theft and perjury. The
City Prosecutor's Office to swear to the veracity and fiscal's office finding a prima facieevidence that
contents of the affidavit as instructed by complainant committed the crime of qualified
management. The affidavit was nevertheless submitted theft issued a resolution for its filing in court but
on the same day to the Regional Office of the Department dismissing the charge of perjury (Exhibit '4' for
of Labor and Employment in Baguio City. respondent and Exhibit 'B-7' for
complainant). As a consequence, complainant
As gleaned from the affidavit, the same was drawn
was charged in court for the said crime (Exhibit
by management for the sole purpose of refuting findings
'5' for respondent and Exhibit 'B-6' for the
of the Labor Inspector of DOLE (in an inspection of
complainant).
respondent's establishment on February 2, 1991)
apparently adverse to the private respondent.[3] With these pieces of evidence, complainant
committed serious misconduct against her
After she refused to proceed to the City Prosecutor's
employer which is one of the just and valid
Office - on the same day the affidavit was submitted to the
grounds for an employer to terminate an
Cordillera Regional Office of DOLE - petitioner avers that
employee (Article 282 of the Labor Code as
she was ordered by the hotel management to turn over
amended).[9]
the keys to her living quarters and to remove her
belongings from the hotel premises.[4] According to her, On April 28, 1994, respondent NLRC promulgated its
respondent strongly chided her for refusing to proceed to assailed Resolution[10] affirming the Labor Arbiter's
the City Prosecutor's Office to attest to the affidavit.[5] She decision. The resolution substantially incorporated the
thereafter reluctantly filed a leave of absence from her job findings of the Labor Arbiter.[11] Unsatisfied, petitioner
which was denied by management. When she attempted instituted the instant special civil action
to return to work on May 10, 1991, the hotel's cashier, for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court on the
Margarita Choy, informed her that she should not report following grounds:[12]
to work and, instead, continue with her unofficial leave of
1. WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, THE
absence. Consequently, on May 13, 1991, three days
HONORABLE NATIONAL LABOR
after her attempt to return to work, petitioner filed a
RELATIONS COMMISSION
complaint for illegal dismissal before the Arbitration
COMMITTED A PATENT AND
Branch of the National Labor Relations Commission -
PALPABLE ERROR AMOUNTING
CAR Baguio City. In addition to her complaint for illegal
TO GRAVE ABUSE OF
dismissal, she alleged underpayment of wages, non-
DISCRETION IN ITS FAILURE TO
payment of holiday pay, service incentive leave pay, 13th
CONSIDER THAT THE ALLEGED
month pay, night differential and other benefits. The
LOSS OF CONFIDENCE IS A
complaint was docketed as NLRC Case No. RAB-CAR-
FALSE CAUSE AND AN
05-0198-91 and assigned to Labor Arbiter Felipe P. Pati.
AFTERTHOUGHT ON THE PART
Responding to the allegations made in support of OF THE RESPONDENT-
petitioner's complaint for illegal dismissal, private EMPLOYER TO JUSTIFY, ALBEIT
respondent Peter Ng alleged before Labor Arbiter Pati ILLEGALLY, THE DISMISSAL OF
that petitioner "surreptitiously left (her job) without notice THE COMPLAINANT FROM HER
to the management"[6] and that she actually abandoned EMPLOYMENT;
her work. He maintained that there was no basis for the
2. WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, THE
money claims for underpayment and other benefits as
HONORABLE NATIONAL LABOR
these were paid in the form of facilities to petitioner and
RELATIONS COMMISSION
the hotel's other employees.[7] Pointing to the Affidavit of
COMMITTED A PATENT AND
May 7, 1991, the private respondent asserted that his
PALPABLE ERROR AMOUNTING
employees actually have no problems with management.
TO GRAVE ABUSE OF
In a supplemental answer submitted eleven (11) months
DISCRETION IN ADOPTING THE
after the original complaint for illegal dismissal was filed,
RULING OF THE LABOR ARBITER
private respondent raised a new ground, loss of
THAT THERE WAS NO
confidence, which was supported by a criminal complaint
UNDERPAYMENT OF WAGES
for Qualified Theft he filed before the prosecutor's office
AND BENEFITS ON THE BASIS OF
of the City of Baguio against petitioner on July 4, 1991.[8]
EXHIBIT "8" (AN UNDATED
On May 14, 1993, Labor Arbiter Pati rendered a SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION
decision dismissing petitioner's complaint on the ground PREPARED BY ALLEGEDLY BY
of loss of confidence. His disquisitions in support of his RESPONDENT'S EXTERNAL
conclusion read as follows: ACCOUNTANT) WHICH IS
TOTALLY INADMISSIBLE AS AN
It appears from the evidence of respondent that
EVIDENCE TO PROVE PAYMENT
complainant carted away or stole one (1)
OF WAGES AND BENEFITS;
blanket, 1 piece bedsheet, 1 piece thermos, 2
pieces towel (Exhibits '9', '9-A,' '9-B,' '9-C' and 3. WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, THE
'10' pages 12-14 TSN, December 1, 1992). HONORABLE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS COMMISSION
In fact, this was the reason why respondent
COMMITTED A PATENT AND
Peter Ng lodged a criminal complaint against
PALPABLE ERROR AMOUNTING Petitioner's absence on that day should not be
TO GRAVE ABUSE OF construed as abandonment of her job. She did
DISCRETION IN FAILING TO not report because the cashier told her not to
CONSIDER THE EVIDENCE report anymore, and that private respondent Ng
ADDUCED BEFORE THE LABOR did not want to see her in the hotel premises. But
ARBITER AS CONSTITUTING two days later or on the 10th of May, after
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE realizing that she had to clarify her employment
COMMITTED BY THE status, she again reported for work. However,
RESPONDENT. she was prevented from working by private
respondents.[19]
The Solicitor General, in a Manifestation in lieu of
Comment dated August 8, 1995 rejects private We now come to the second cause raised by private
respondent's principal claims and defenses and urges this respondent to support his contention that petitioner was
Court to set aside the public respondent's assailed validly dismissed from her job.
resolution.[13]
Loss of confidence as a just cause for dismissal was
We agree. never intended to provide employers with a blank check
for terminating their employees. Such a vague, all-
It is settled that in termination cases the employer
encompassing pretext as loss of confidence, if
bears the burden of proof to show that the dismissal is for
unqualifiedly given the seal of approval by this Court,
just cause, the failure of which would mean that the
could readily reduce to barren form the words of the
dismissal is not justified and the employee is entitled to
constitutional guarantee of security of tenure. Having this
reinstatement.[14]
in mind, loss of confidence should ideally apply only to
In the case at bar, the private respondent initially cases involving employees occupying positions of trust
claimed that petitioner abandoned her job when she failed and confidence or to those situations where the employee
to return to work on May 8, 1991. Additionally, in order to is routinely charged with the care and custody of the
strengthen his contention that there existed sufficient employer's money or property. To the first class belong
cause for the termination of petitioner, he belatedly managerial employees, i.e., those vested with the powers
included a complaint for loss of confidence, supporting or prerogatives to lay down management policies and/or
this with charges that petitioner had stolen a blanket, a to hire, transfer, suspend, lay-off, recall, discharge, assign
bedsheet and two towels from the hotel.[15] Appended to or discipline employees or effectively recommend such
his last complaint was a suit for qualified theft filed with managerial actions; and to the second class belong
the Baguio City prosecutor's office. cashiers, auditors, property custodians, etc., or those
who, in the normal and routine exercise of their functions,
From the evidence on record, it is crystal clear that regularly handle significant amounts of money or
the circumstances upon which private respondent property. Evidently, an ordinary chambermaid who has to
anchored his claim that petitioner "abandoned" her job sign out for linen and other hotel property from the
were not enough to constitute just cause to sanction the property custodian each day and who has to account for
termination of her services under Article 283 of the Labor each and every towel or bedsheet utilized by the hotel's
Code. For abandonment to arise, there must be guests at the end of her shift would not fall under any of
concurrence of two things: 1) lack of intention to these two classes of employees for which loss of
work;[16] and 2) the presence of overt acts signifying the confidence, if ably supported by evidence, would normally
employee's intention not to work.[17] apply. Illustrating this distinction, this Court, in Marina
In the instant case, respondent does not dispute the Port Services, Inc. vs. NLRC,[20] has stated that:
fact that petitioner tried to file a leave of absence when To be sure, every employee must enjoy some
she learned that the hotel management was displeased degree of trust and confidence from the
with her refusal to attest to the affidavit. The fact that she employer as that is one reason why he was
made this attempt clearly indicates not an intention to employed in the first place. One certainly does
abandon but an intention to return to work after the period not employ a person he distrusts. Indeed, even
of her leave of absence, had it been granted, shall have the lowly janitor must enjoy that trust and
expired. confidence in some measure if only because he
Furthermore, while absence from work for a is the one who opens the office in the morning
prolonged period may suggest abandonment in certain and closes it at night and in this sense is
instances, mere absence of one or two days would not be entrusted with the care or protection of the
enough to sustain such a claim. The overt act (absence) employer's property. The keys he holds are the
ought to unerringly point to the fact that the employee has symbol of that trust and confidence.
no intention to return to work,[18] which is patently not the By the same token, the security guard must also
case here. In fact, several days after she had been be considered as enjoying the trust and
advised to take an informal leave, petitioner tried to confidence of his employer, whose property he
resume working with the hotel, to no avail. It was only is safeguarding. Like the janitor, he has access
after she had been repeatedly rebuffed that she filed a to this property. He too, is charged with its care
case for illegal dismissal. These acts militate against the and protection.
private respondent's claim that petitioner abandoned her
job. As the Solicitor General in his manifestation Notably, however, and like the janitor again, he
observed: is entrusted only with the physical task of
protecting that property. The employer's trust right to institute concerted action for better terms and
and confidence in him is limited to that conditions of employment. Without doubt, the act of
ministerial function. He is not entrusted, in the compelling employees to sign an instrument indicating
Labor Arbiter's words, 'with the duties of that the employer observed labor standards provisions of
safekeeping and safeguarding company law when he might have not, together with the act of
policies, management instructions, and terminating or coercing those who refuse to cooperate
company secrets such as operation with the employer's scheme constitutes unfair labor
devices.' He is not privy to these confidential practice. The first act clearly preempts the right of the
matters, which are shared only in the higher hotel's workers to seek better terms and conditions of
echelons of management. It is the persons on employment through concerted action.
such levels who, because they discharge these
We agree with the Solicitor General's observation in
sensitive duties, may be considered holding
his manifestation that "[t]his actuation... is analogous to
positions of trust and confidence. The security
the situation envisaged in paragraph (f) of Article 248 of
guard does not belong in such category.[21]
the Labor Code"[24] which distinctly makes it an unfair
More importantly, we have repeatedly held that loss labor practice "to dismiss, discharge or otherwise
of confidence should not be simulated in order to justify prejudice or discriminate against an employee for having
what would otherwise be, under the provisions of law, an given or being about to give testimony"[25] under the Labor
illegal dismissal. "It should not be used as a subterfuge Code. For in not giving positive testimony in favor of her
for causes which are illegal, improper and unjustified. It employer, petitioner had reserved not only her right to
must be genuine, not a mere afterthought to justify an dispute the claim and proffer evidence in support thereof
earlier action taken in bad faith."[22] but also to work for better terms and conditions of
employment.
In the case at bar, the suspicious delay in private
respondent's filing of qualified theft charges against For refusing to cooperate with the private
petitioner long after the latter exposed the hotel's scheme respondent's scheme, petitioner was obviously held up as
(to avoid its obligations as employer under the Labor an example to all of the hotel's employees, that they could
Code) by her act of filing illegal dismissal charges against only cause trouble to management at great personal
the private respondent would hardly warrant serious inconvenience. Implicit in the act of petitioner's
consideration of loss of confidence as a valid ground for termination and the subsequent filing of charges against
dismissal. Notably, the Solicitor General has himself her was the warning that they would not only be deprived
taken a position opposite the public respondent and has of their means of livelihood, but also possibly, their
observed that: personal liberty.
If petitioner had really committed This Court does not normally overturn findings and
the acts charged against her by private conclusions of quasi-judicial agencies when the same are
respondents (stealing supplies of respondent ably supported by the evidence on record. However,
hotel), private respondents should have where such conclusions are based on a misperception of
confronted her before dismissing her on that facts or where they patently fly in the face of reason and
ground. Private respondents did not do so. In logic, we will not hesitate to set aside those
fact, private respondent Ng did not raise the conclusions.Going into the issue of petitioner's money
matter when petitioner went to see him on May claims, we find one more salient reason in this case to set
9, 1991, and handed him her application for things right: the labor arbiter's evaluation of the money
leave. It took private respondents 52 days or up claims in this case incredibly ignores existing law and
to July 4, 1991 before finally deciding to file a jurisprudence on the matter. Its blatant one-sidedness
criminal complaint against petitioner, in an simply raises the suspicion that something more than the
obvious attempt to build a case against her. facts, the law and jurisprudence may have influenced the
decision at the level of the Arbiter.
The manipulations of private respondents
should not be countenanced.[23] Labor Arbiter Pati accepted hook, line and sinker the
private respondent's bare claim that the reason the
Clearly, the efforts to justify petitioner's dismissal - on
monetary benefits received by petitioner between 1981 to
top of the private respondent's scheme of inducing his
1987 were less than minimum wage was because
employees to sign an affidavit absolving him from
petitioner did not factor in the meals, lodging, electric
possible violations of the Labor Code - taints with evident
consumption and water she received during the period in
bad faith and deliberate malice petitioner's summary
her computations.[26] Granting that meals and lodging
termination from employment.
were provided and indeed constituted facilities, such
Having said this, we turn to the important question of facilities could not be deducted without the employer
whether or not the dismissal by the private respondent of complying first with certain legal requirements. Without
petitioner constitutes an unfair labor practice. satisfying these requirements, the employer simply
cannot deduct the value from the employee's
The answer in this case must inevitably be in the wages. First, proof must be shown that such facilities are
affirmative. customarily furnished by the trade. Second, the provision
The pivotal question in any case where unfair labor of deductible facilities must be voluntarily accepted in
practice on the part of the employer is alleged is whether writing by the employee.Finally, facilities must be charged
or not the employer has exerted pressure, in the form of at fair and reasonable value.[27]
restraint, interference or coercion, against his employee's
These requirements were not met in the instant case. promulgation of this decision without qualification or
Private respondent "failed to present any company policy deduction.
or guideline to show that the meal and lodging . . . (are)
Finally, in dismissal cases, the law requires that the
part of the salary;"[28] he failed to provide proof of the
employer must furnish the employee sought to be
employee's written authorization; and, he failed to show
terminated from employment with two written notices
how he arrived at the valuations.[29]
before the same may be legally effected. The first is a
Curiously, in the case at bench, the only valuations written notice containing a statement of the cause(s) for
relied upon by the labor arbiter in his decision were figures dismissal; the second is a notice informing the employee
furnished by the private respondent's own accountant, of the employer's decision to terminate him stating the
without corroborative evidence. On the pretext that basis of the dismissal. During the process leading to the
records prior to the July 16, 1990 earthquake were lost or second notice, the employer must give the employee
destroyed, respondent failed to produce payroll records, ample opportunity to be heard and defend himself, with
receipts and other relevant documents, where he could the assistance of counsel if he so desires.
have, as has been pointed out in the Solicitor General's
Given the seriousness of the second cause (qualified
manifestation, "secured certified copies thereof from the
theft) of the petitioner's dismissal, it is noteworthy that the
nearest regional office of the Department of Labor, the
private respondent never even bothered to inform
SSS or the BIR."[30]
petitioner of the charges against her. Neither was
More significantly, the food and lodging, or the petitioner given the opportunity to explain the loss of the
electricity and water consumed by the petitioner were not articles. It was only almost two months after petitioner had
facilities but supplements. A benefit or privilege granted filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, as an afterthought,
to an employee for the convenience of the employer is not that the loss was reported to the police and added as a
a facility. The criterion in making a distinction between the supplemental answer to petitioner's complaint. Clearly,
two not so much lies in the kind (food, lodging) but the the dismissal of petitioner without the benefit of notice and
purpose.[31] Considering, therefore, that hotel workers are hearing prior to her termination violated her constitutional
required to work different shifts and are expected to be right to due process. Under the circumstances, an award
available at various odd hours, their ready availability is a of One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00) on top of payment
necessary matter in the operations of a small hotel, such of the deficiency in wages and benefits for the period
as the private respondent's hotel. aforestated would be proper.
It is therefore evident that petitioner is entitled to the WHEREFORE, premises considered, the
payment of the deficiency in her wages equivalent to RESOLUTION of the National Labor Relations
the full wage applicable from May 13, 1988 up to the date Commission dated April 24, 1994 is REVERSED and SET
of her illegal dismissal. ASIDE, with costs.For clarity, the economic benefits due
the petitioner are hereby summarized as follows:
Additionally, petitioner is entitled to payment of
service incentive leave pay, emergency cost of living 1) Deficiency wages and the applicable ECOLA
allowance, night differential pay, and 13th month pay for from May 13, 1988 up to the date of petitioner's
the periods alleged by the petitioner as the private illegal dismissal;
respondent has never been able to adduce proof that
2) Service incentive leave pay; night differential
petitioner was paid the aforestated benefits.
pay and 13th month pay for the same period;
However, the claims covering the period of October
3) Separation pay equal to one month's salary
1987 up to the time of filing the case on May 13, 1988 are
for every year of petitioner's continuous service
barred by prescription as P.D. 442 (as amended) and its
with the private respondent starting with her job
implementing rules limit all money claims arising out of
at the Belfront Hotel;
employer-employee relationship to three (3) years from
the time the cause of action accrues.[32] 4) Full backwages, without qualification or
deduction, from the date of petitioner's illegal
We depart from the settled rule that an employee
dismissal up to the date of promulgation of this
who is unjustly dismissed from work normally should be
decision pursuant to our ruling in
reinstated without loss of seniority rights and other [34]
Bustamante vs. NLRC.
privileges.Owing to the strained relations between
petitioner and private respondent, allowing the former to 5) P1.000.00.
return to her job would only subject her to possible
harassment and future embarrassment. In the instant SO ORDERED.
case, separation pay equivalent to one month's salary for
every year of continuous service with the private
respondent would be proper, starting with her job at the
Belfront Hotel.
[G.R. No. 128845. June 1, 2000]
In addition to separation pay, backwages are in
order. Pursuant to R.A. 6715 and our decision in Osmalik INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL ALLIANCE OF
Bustamante, et al. vs. National Labor Relations EDUCATORS (ISAE), petitioner, vs. HON.
Commission,[33] petitioner is entitled to full backwages LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING in his capacity as the
from the time of her illegal dismissal up to the date of Secretary of Labor and Employment; HON.
CRESENCIANO B. TRAJANO in his capacity as the
Acting Secretary of Labor and Employment; DR. twenty-five percent (25%) more than local-hires. The
BRIAN MACCAULEY in his capacity as the School justifies the difference on two "significant
Superintendent of International School-Manila; and economic disadvantages" foreign-hires have to endure,
INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL, INC., respondents. namely: (a) the "dislocation factor" and (b) limited tenure.
The School explains:
DECISION
A foreign-hire would necessarily have to
KAPUNAN, J.: uproot himself from his home country,
leave his family and friends, and take the
Receiving salaries less than their counterparts hired risk of deviating from a promising career
abroad, the local-hires of private respondent School, path-all for the purpose of pursuing his
mostly Filipinos, cry discrimination. We agree. That the profession as an educator, but this time
local-hires are paid more than their colleagues in other in a foreign land. The new foreign hire is
schools is, of course, beside the point. The point is that faced with economic realities: decent
employees should be given equal pay for work of equal abode for oneself and/or for one's family,
value. That is a principle long honored in this jurisdiction. effective means of transportation,
That is a principle that rests on fundamental notions of allowance for the education of one's
justice. That is the principle we uphold today. children, adequate insurance against
illness and death, and of course the
Private respondent International School, Inc. (the School, primary benefit of a basic
for short), pursuant to Presidential Decree 732, is a salary/retirement compensation.
domestic educational institution established primarily for
dependents of foreign diplomatic personnel and other Because of a limited tenure, the foreign
temporary residents.[1] To enable the School to continue hire is confronted again with the same
carrying out its educational program and improve its economic reality after his term: that he
standard of instruction, Section 2(c) of the same decree will eventually and inevitably return to his
authorizes the School to home country where he will have to
confront the uncertainty of obtaining
employ its own teaching and suitable employment after a long period
management personnel selected by it in a foreign land.
either locally or abroad, from Philippine
or other nationalities, such personnel The compensation scheme is simply the
being exempt from otherwise applicable School's adaptive measure to remain
laws and regulations attending their competitive on an international level in
employment, except laws that have been terms of attracting competent
or will be enacted for the protection of professionals in the field of international
employees. education.[3]
Accordingly, the School hires both foreign and local When negotiations for a new collective bargaining
teachers as members of its faculty, classifying the same agreement were held on June 1995, petitioner
into two: (1) foreign-hires and (2) local-hires. The School International School Alliance of Educators, "a legitimate
employs four tests to determine whether a faculty member labor union and the collective bargaining representative
should be classified as a foreign-hire or a local hire: of all faculty members"[4] of the School, contested the
difference in salary rates between foreign and local-hires.
a.....What is one's domicile? This issue, as well as the question of whether foreign-
hires should be included in the appropriate bargaining
b.....Where is one's home economy? unit, eventually caused a deadlock between the parties.
c.....To which country does one owe On September 7, 1995, petitioner filed a notice of strike.
economic allegiance? The failure of the National Conciliation and Mediation
Board to bring the parties to a compromise prompted the
d.....Was the individual hired abroad Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) to assume
specifically to work in the School and was jurisdiction over the dispute. On June 10, 1996, the DOLE
the School responsible for bringing that Acting Secretary, Crescenciano B. Trajano, issued an
individual to the Philippines?[2] Order resolving the parity and representation issues in
favor of the School. Then DOLE Secretary Leonardo A.
Should the answer to any of these queries point to the Quisumbing subsequently denied petitioner's motion for
Philippines, the faculty member is classified as a local reconsideration in an Order dated March 19, 1997.
hire; otherwise, he or she is deemed a foreign-hire. Petitioner now seeks relief in this Court.
The School grants foreign-hires certain benefits not Petitioner claims that the point-of-hire classification
accorded local-hires. These include housing, employed by the School is discriminatory to Filipinos and
transportation, shipping costs, taxes, and home leave that the grant of higher salaries to foreign-hires
travel allowance. Foreign-hires are also paid a salary rate constitutes racial discrimination.
The School disputes these claims and gives a breakdown The new salary
of its faculty members, numbering 38 in all, with schedule is deemed at
nationalities other than Filipino, who have been hired equity with the Overseas
locally and classified as local hires.[5]The Acting Secretary Recruited Staff (OSRS)
of Labor found that these non-Filipino local-hires received salary schedule. The
the same benefits as the Filipino local-hires: 25% differential is
reflective of the agreed
The compensation package given to local-hires has been value of system
shown to apply to all, regardless of race. Truth to tell, displacement and
there are foreigners who have been hired locally and who contracted status of the
are paid equally as Filipino local hires.[6] OSRS as differentiated
from the tenured status
The Acting Secretary upheld the point-of-hire of Locally Recruited
classification for the distinction in salary rates: Staff (LRS).
The principle "equal pay for equal work" To our mind, these provisions
does not find application in the present demonstrate the parties' recognition of
case. The international character of the the difference in the status of two types
School requires the hiring of foreign of employees, hence, the difference in
personnel to deal with different their salaries.
nationalities and different cultures,
among the student population. The Union cannot also invoke the equal
protection clause to justify its claim of
We also take cognizance of the existence parity. It is an established principle of
of a system of salaries and benefits constitutional law that the guarantee of
accorded to foreign hired personnel equal protection of the laws is not
which system is universally recognized. violated by legislation or private
We agree that certain amenities have to covenants based on reasonable
be provided to these people in order to classification. A classification is
entice them to render their services in the reasonable if it is based on substantial
Philippines and in the process remain distinctions and apply to all members of
competitive in the international market. the same class. Verily, there is a
substantial distinction between foreign
Furthermore, we took note of the fact that hires and local hires, the former enjoying
foreign hires have limited contract of only a limited tenure, having no amenities
employment unlike the local hires who of their own in the Philippines and have
enjoy security of tenure. To apply parity to be given a good compensation
therefore, in wages and other benefits package in order to attract them to join
would also require parity in other terms the teaching faculty of the School.[7]
and conditions of employment which
include the employment contract. We cannot agree.
A perusal of the parties' 1992-1995 CBA That public policy abhors inequality and discrimination is
points us to the conditions and provisions beyond contention. Our Constitution and laws reflect the
for salary and professional compensation policy against these evils. The Constitution[8] in the Article
wherein the parties agree as follows: on Social Justice and Human Rights exhorts Congress to
"give highest priority to the enactment of measures that
All members of the protect and enhance the right of all people to human
bargaining unit shall be dignity, reduce social, economic, and political
compensated only in inequalities." The very broad Article 19 of the Civil Code
accordance with requires every person, "in the exercise of his rights and in
Appendix C hereof the performance of his duties, [to] act with justice, give
provided that the everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith."
Superintendent of the
School has the International law, which springs from general principles of
discretion to recruit and law,[9] likewise proscribes discrimination. General
hire expatriate teachers principles of law include principles of equity, [10] i.e., the
from abroad, under general principles of fairness and justice, based on the
terms and conditions test of what is reasonable.[11] The Universal Declaration of
that are consistent with Human Rights,[12] the International Covenant on
accepted international Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights,[13] the International
practice. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
Discrimination,[14] the Convention against Discrimination
Appendix C of said CBA further provides: in Education,[15] the Convention (No. 111) Concerning
Discrimination in Respect of Employment and
Occupation[16] - all embody the general principle against equal qualifications, skill, effort and responsibility, under
discrimination, the very antithesis of fairness and justice. similar conditions, should be paid similar salaries.[22] This
The Philippines, through its Constitution, has rule applies to the School, its "international character"
incorporated this principle as part of its national laws. notwithstanding.
In the workplace, where the relations between capital and The School contends that petitioner has not adduced
labor are often skewed in favor of capital, inequality and evidence that local-hires perform work equal to that of
discrimination by the employer are all the more foreign-hires.[23] The Court finds this argument a little
reprehensible. cavalier. If an employer accords employees the same
position and rank, the presumption is that these
The Constitution[17] specifically provides that labor is employees perform equal work. This presumption is
entitled to "humane conditions of work." These conditions borne by logic and human experience. If the employer
are not restricted to the physical workplace - the factory, pays one employee less than the rest, it is not for that
the office or the field - but include as well the manner by employee to explain why he receives less or why the
which employers treat their employees. others receive more. That would be adding insult to injury.
The employer has discriminated against that employee; it
The Constitution[18] also directs the State to promote is for the employer to explain why the employee is treated
"equality of employment opportunities for all." Similarly, unfairly.
the Labor Code[19] provides that the State shall "ensure
equal work opportunities regardless of sex, race or The employer in this case has failed to discharge this
creed." It would be an affront to both the spirit and letter burden. There is no evidence here that foreign-hires
of these provisions if the State, in spite of its primordial perform 25% more efficiently or effectively than the local-
obligation to promote and ensure equal employment hires. Both groups have similar functions and
opportunities, closes its eyes to unequal and responsibilities, which they perform under similar working
discriminatory terms and conditions of employment.[20] conditions.
Discrimination, particularly in terms of wages, is frowned The School cannot invoke the need to entice foreign-hires
upon by the Labor Code. Article 135, for example, to leave their domicile to rationalize the distinction in
prohibits and penalizes[21] the payment of lesser salary rates without violating the principle of equal work
compensation to a female employee as against a male for equal pay.
employee for work of equal value. Article 248 declares it
an unfair labor practice for an employer to discriminate in "Salary" is defined in Black's Law Dictionary (5th ed.) as
regard to wages in order to encourage or discourage "a reward or recompense for services performed."
membership in any labor organization. Similarly, the Philippine Legal Encyclopedia states that
"salary" is the "[c]onsideration paid at regular intervals for
Notably, the International Covenant on Economic, Social, the rendering of services." In Songco v. National Labor
and Cultural Rights, supra, in Article 7 thereof, provides: Relations Commission,[24] we said that:
The second issue; Annexes G, G-1 to G-14 of the On appeal, respondent contends that the Labor Arbiter
respondents, which are samples of respondents payroll, erred in awarding backwages to the complainant from
show that whenever the complainant rendered overtime February 1, 1993 up to the date of the promulgation of the
services, he was paid accordingly. Is he entitled to his decision, and in awarding separation pay of one month
claim for 13th monthpay, service incentive leave pay, pay for every year of service.
vacation in sick leave pay and separation
pay? Respondents maintain that since the complainant We are in full accord with the Labor Arbiters conclusion
was employed by them only on February 1, 1991, he has that the complainant was constructively dismissed by the
no right to claim benefits that arose before his respondent Delfin Garcia when he refused to admit the
employment with them. That since he was not dismissed complainant despite his insistence to go back to work.
from his employment, he is not also entitled to his claim
for separation pay. (The resolution of this issue will also However, we delete the award of attorneys fees as this is
resolve the second issue) not a case of unlawful withholding of wages.
Respondents argue that the services of the complainant WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appealed
with NAPCO since March 1987, cannot be credited or decision is modified by deleting the award of attorneys
counted to his length of service with LUZMART because fees. In all other respect, the same is affirmed.
his subsequent employment with LUZMART is a new
employment as shown in his employment contract (Annex SO ORDERED.[4]
D respondents) with LUZMART.
LUZMARTs motion for reconsideration[5] was denied
In the case of MDII Supervisors and Confidential hence, this petition wherein LUZMART claims that the
Employees Association (FFW) vs. Presidential Assistant NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in holding that
on Legal Affairs, 79 SCRA 40 (1977), the Supreme Court LACSON was illegally dismissed.
ruled that:
In support of its petition, LUZMART claims that
xxx And there is no law which requires the purchaser to LACSON was not dismissed but was merely suspended
absorb the employees of the selling corporation. as shown by the March 31, 1993 memorandum.[6] His
suspension was a consequence of the imposition of
As there is no such law, the most that the purchasing disciplinary measures on him as fighting within the
company may do, for purposes of public policy and social company premises constitutes serious misconduct and
justice, is to give preference to the qualified separated disorderly behavior. The fact that LUZMART did not
employees of the selling company, who in their judgment immediately suspend him after the fighting incident does
are necessary in the continued operation of the business not establish that he was dismissed from his employment
establishment. This RCAM did. It required private as there is no law which requires an employer to
respondents to reapply as new employees as a condition immediately rule on any infraction under investigation
for rehiring subject to the usual probationary status, the after the filing of the explanation of the person under
latters past services with the petitioners, transferors not investigation. Neither is LACSON entitled to backwages
recognized (San Felipe Neri School of Mandaluyong, Inc., nor separation pay as these are only granted to
et. Al. Vs. NLRC, Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila employees who have been illegally dismissed from work
(RCAM), et. al., G.R. No. 78350, Sept. 11, 1991.). and not to employees like LACSON who abandoned his
employment as he failed to report to work from February
15, 1993 to March 31, 1993.[7]
Except for his bare allegation that LUZMART was only
organized by the controlling stockholders of NAPCO to We resolve to affirm the judgment of the NLRC.
acquire or gain control of the latter, the complainant did
not present sufficient evidence to prove his allegation, LUZMARTs claim that LACSON was merely
LUZMART is an entirely new corporation or entity with a suspended and was still employed by LUZMART does not
distinct personality from NAPCO, and is not an alter ego convince us that LACSON was not dismissed from his
of NAPCO. Therefore, LUZMART is not under obligation employment. Said claim was a mere afterthought to
to absorb the workers of NAPCO or to absorb the length preempt or thwart the impending illegal dismissal case
of service earned by its employees. filed by LACSON against LUZMART. As found by the
labor arbiter, LACSONs failure to report to work was due
The respondents are therefore correct in their assertion to LUZMARTs refusal to admit him back. In fact,
that they should not be answerable for the complainants LUZMART told him to go on vacation or to look for other
work.[8]
LACSONs dismissal is clearly established by the We also do not agree with LUZMART that LACSON
following chronology of events: The mauling incident gave just cause for the imposition of disciplinary
occurred on January 28, 1993. LACSON submitted his measures upon him. Although fighting within company
written explanation of the event on February 1, 1993. On premises may constitute serious misconduct under Article
February 4, 1993, LACSON attempted to report for work 282[21] of the Labor Code and may be a just cause to
but LUZMART refused to admit him. On February 11, terminate ones employment[22], every fight within
1993, LACSON filed an action for illegal dismissal with the company premises in which an employee is involved
NLRC.[9] On April 13, 1993, LUZMART sent LACSON the would not warrant his dismissal. This is especially true
memorandum ordering LACSONs suspension dated on when the employee concerned did not instigate the fight
March 31, 1993. By this time, LUZMART already knew of and was in fact the victim who was constrained to defend
the pending illegal dismissal case against it as it was himself.In the present case, it appears that LACSON was
already directed by the NLRC to submit its position paper assaulted by Julius Viray (VIRAY), a co-employee, after
on April 5, 1993. LUZMARTs reliance on the March 31, they were questioned about missing diesel fuel. LACSON
1993 memorandum[10] and the February 1-15, 1993 attempted to avoid the conflict since VIRAY was
payroll[11] to prove that LACSON was merely suspended intoxicated but VIRAY followed him and after an
is therefore unavailing. The March 31, 1993 exchange of words, VIRAY punched him while saying
memorandum is at most self-serving; a ploy to cover up Papatayin Kita (I will kill you). After being punched a
the dismissal of LACSON since this was issued after second time, LACSON punched back. He thereafter ran
LUZMART had knowledge of the illegal dismissal case towards the dressing plant after his companion, a certain
filed against it by LACSON on February 11, DANNY, told him to run. VIRAY was persistent and
1993.Likewise, the veracity of the February 1-15, 1993 followed LACSON and continued delivering punches at
payroll that purportedly shows that LACSON was included him. LACSON ran away for a second time but VIRAY still
in LUZMARTs payroll is of doubtful probative value. First pursued him and even armed himself with a lead
of all, it does not contain a certification by Charito pipe. LACSON sustained wounds on his head and
Fernandez at its back page, unlike the other forehead due to VIRAYs use of the lead pipe. The
payrolls[12] attached as annexes to LUZMARTs Medico-Legal Certificate[23] issued by the Gov. Teofilo
petition. Secondly, said payroll does not contain the Sison Memorial Hospital corroborates LACSONs
signatures of the other employees as proof that they injuries. Given the above circumstances, it is not difficult
received their salaries for the said period. Given these to understand why LACSON had to defend himself.
circumstances, both documents appear to have been
Even assuming that there was just cause to dismiss
prepared in contemplation of the pending illegal dismissal
LACSON, strict compliance by the employer with the
case filed against LUZMART.
demands of both procedural and substantive due process
The contention that LACSON abandoned his is a condition sine qua non for the termination to be
employment is also without merit. Mere absence or failure declared valid. The law requires that the employer must
to report for work, after notice to return, is not enough to furnish the worker sought to be dismissed with two written
amount to such abandonment.[13] For a valid finding of notices before termination of employment can be legally
abandonment, two factors must be present, viz; (1) the effected:
failure to report for work or absence without valid or
1. notice which apprises the employee of the
justifiable reason; and (2) a clear intention to sever the
particular acts or omissions for which his
employer-employee relationship,[14] with the second
dismissal is sought; and
element as the more determinative factor being
manifested by some overt acts.[15] There must be 2. the subsequent notice which informs the
a concurrence of the intention to abandon and some overt employee of the employers decision to
acts from which an employee may be deduced as having dismiss him.[24]
no more intention to work.[16] Such intent to discontinue
the employment must be shown by clear proof that it was It is unclear whether LUZMART complied with the
deliberate and unjustified.[17] first required written notice; apparently, LACSON was
able to give his account of the fight. However, even
LACSONs absence from work was not without a assuming that LUZMART complied with the first written
valid reason. It was petitioner who did not allow him to notice i.e. the charge against LACSON with fighting within
work and in fact told him to go on vacation or to look for company premises, the evidence fails to show
other work. This is tantamount to a constructive dismissal compliance with the second notice requirement; to inform
which is defined as a quitting because continued LACSON of the decision to dismiss him. Such failure to
employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or comply with said requirements taints LACSONs dismissal
unlikely; as an offer involving a demotion in rank and with illegality.
diminution in pay[18] Since LACSON was denied entry into
his workplace, it was impossible for him to return to An illegally dismissed employee is entitled to 1)
work. It would be unjust to allow herein petitioners to claim either reinstatement or separation pay if reinstatement is
as a ground for abandonment a situation which they no longer viable, and 2) backwages.[25] In the present
themselves had brought about.[19] Moreover, LACSONs case, LACSON is entitled to be reinstated, as there is no
filing of the complaint for illegal dismissal on February 11, evidence to show that reinstatement is no longer possible
1993, or seven days after his alleged abandonment, considering LUZMARTs position in this appeal is that
negates said charge. It is highly illogical for an employee LACSON was never dismissed but merely
to abandon his employment and thereafter file a complaint suspended. He is also entitled to backwages computed
for illegal dismissal.[20] from the time of illegal dismissal, in this case on February
4, 1993[26] (not February 1, 1993 as found by the NLRC) To buy peace, petitioner offered P5,000.00 but to no
up to the time of actual reinstatement, without qualification avail. The offer was flatly rejected by private
or deduction[27] respondent. When conciliation efforts proved futile, the
Labor Arbiter directed the parties to submit their position
WHEREFORE, the assailed decision of the NLRC is
papers on or before April 28, 1995, which deadline was
AFFIRMED and the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED
extended to May 5, 1995. In his Order of May 9, 1995,
with the MODIFICATION that LUZMART reinstate
Labor Arbiter Facundo L. Leda gavepetitioner a last
LACSON to his former position and pay him backwages
opportunity to file/submit their (sic) Position Paper within
computed from the date of illegal dismissal on February
seven (7) days from receipt hereof otherwise their (sic)
4, 1993 up to the time of actual reinstatement.
right to be heard are (sic) deemed waived and this case
No pronouncement as to costs. will be decided on the basis of the documents on file. [4]
GANDARA MILL SUPPLY and MILAGROS WHEREFORE, decision is hereby rendered ordering
SY, petitioners, vs. THE NATIONAL LABOR respondent/s Gandara Mill Supply and/or Milagros Sy to
RELATIONS COMMISSION AND SILVESTRE pay complainant Silvestre Germano the sum of SIXTY
GERMANO, respondents. FIVE THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED EIGHTY FIVE PESOS
AND 90/100 (P65,685.90) representing separation pay,
DECISION backwages, SLIP and attorneys fee as iscussed and
PURISIMA, J.: computed above.
At bar is a special civil action for Certiorari under On March 4, 1996, petitioner appealed said decision
Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court, assailing the to the NLRC. To the appeal, an Opposition was
Resolution[1] of the National Labor Relations interposed on March 15, 1996.
Commission[2] (NLRC)promulgated on May 22, 1996, On May 22, 1996, the NLRC dismissed petitioners
and NLRC Resolution[3] dated July 23, 1996, denying appeal for failure to post a cash or surety bond.
petitioners motion for reconsideration in NLRC NCR 00-
02-1653-94. The appeal was predicated on the submission that
petitioners business is small, on which invoked ground
From the records on hand, it appears that: petitioner sought exemption from posting a bond. Should
Milagros Sy, owner of Gandara Mill Supply, at No. its prayer for exemption of a bond be denied, petitioner
708 Gandara St., Binondo, Manila, was the respondent in asked for at least twenty (20) days to put up such bond.
NLRC Case No. 02-01653-94 instituted by Silvestre The petition attacks the July 23, 1996 Resolution of
Germano (now the private respondent). public respondent, affirming the decision of the Labor
On February 6, 1995, the private respondent, Arbiter dated January 29, 1996. On August 14, 1996, a
without notifying his employer, Milagros Sy, did not report Motion for Execution was presented by private
for work until February 11, 1995. Like any expectant respondent. NLRC entered its judgment on August 26,
father, he chose to be near his wife who was then about 1996.
to deliver. The wife gave birth on February 12, On September 6, 1996, private respondent sent in
1995. Upon private respondents request, Milagros Sy an Ex-parte Motion for Execution, which was
extended some financial assistance to the Germano granted. The corresponding Writ of Execution issued
couple. on September 13, 1996.
The petition avers inter alia that Gandara Mill Supply The issues posited for resolution :
is a small business enterprise with only
two (2) employees, including the herein private FIRST, did the public respondent act with grave
respondent, to do manual work. With inadequate abuse of discretion in dismissing petitioners appeal and in
manpower, the absence of just one worker can spell not giving petitioner a chance to prove that the private
untold difficulties in its operations. Matters became even respondent was not illegally dismissed but was merely
worse when private respondent, without informing his suspended for abandoning his job?; and
employer, was absent for a long time, so much so that the SECOND, did the public respondent act with grave
former incurred the ire of the latter. Two (2) weeks abuse of discretion in awarding to the private respondent
after, private respondent returned to duty, and to his the amount of SIXTY-FIVE THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED
surprise, he was met by his employer to personally tell EIGHTY-FIVE AND 90/00 (P65,685.90), which amount
him that someone had been hired to take his place. He petitioner assails as excessive?
was advised, however, that he was to be re-admitted in
June 1996. To be sure, the petitioner was afforded a chance to
show that the private respondent was not illegally
On February 27, 1995, a case of illegal dismissal dismissed. Unfortunately, petitioner failed to discharge its
was commenced by the private respondent with the burden of proof.
Department of Labor and Employment.
In a long line of cases, the Court has consistently dismissal, its illegality stems from the non-observance of
ruled that, findings of fact by quasi-judicial agencies like due process. Applying the WenPhil Doctrine by analogy,
the NLRC are conclusive upon the court in the absence where dismissal was not preceded by the twin
of proof of grave error in the appreciation of facts. requirement of notice and hearing, the legality of the
Petitioners bare allegation that it was denied the right to dismissal in question, is under heavy clouds and therefore
be heard is negated by the Labor Arbiters illegal. While it cannot be deduced unerringly from the
extension of much leniency to petitioner by allowing the records on hand that private respondent was really
latter to submit a position paper on April 28, 1995, then on dismissed, there is no clear indication that the latter was
May 5, 1995, and finally, seven (7) days from receipt of to be reinstated. In fact, since the inception of the case,
the Order dated May 9, what petitioner merely endeavored was to compromise for
1995. Generally, reglementary periods are strictly a measly sum of P5,000.00, and no mention of taking
observed to the end that orderly administration of respondent back to his job was ever offered as part of the
justice be safeguarded. In the case under consideration, deal to end the controversy. What can be surmised from
the public respondent had been quite liberal in observing petitionerss offer to re-admit the private respondent, was
and enforcing the rules. Consequently, petitioners nothing but a polite gesture couched in words intended to
protestation of denial of opportunity to be heard is barren make the impact of his so-called suspension less
of any factual basis. The principle of laches finds a wide severe. Invoking the plight of a working man, where no
room for application here. Laches, in a general sense, is work, no pay is the rule of thumb, the court cannot
failure or neglect for an unreasonable length of time to do sanction an over extended suspension.The Labor Code
that which by exercising due diligence could or should explicitly provides, that :
have been done earlier; it is negligence or omission to
assert a right within a reasonable time warranting a No preventive suspension shall last longer than thirty (30)
presumption that the party entitled to assert it has either days. The employer shall thereafter reinstate the worker
abandoned or declined to raise it. The doctrine of laches to his former or substantially equivalent position or the
or stale demands is based upon grounds of public policy employer may extend the period of suspension provided
which require for the peace of society, discouragement of that during the period of extension, he pays the wages
stale claims. And unlike the statute of limitations, it is not and other benefits due to the worker. In such case, the
a mere question of time but is principally a question of worker shall not be bound to reimburse the amount paid
inequity or unfairness or permitting a right or claim to be to him during the extension if the employer decides
enforced or asserted. (Tijam v. Sibonghanoy, 23 SCRA after completion of the hearing to dismiss the worker.[5]
29). So also, in the Order, dated May 9, 1995, respondent
Commission declared in clear and unequivocal terms In this case, the supposed suspension was expected
that failure to file a position paper is deemed a waiver of to last for more than the period allowed by law, thus
the right to be heard and that decisions will be based on making the suspension constitutive of an illegal
the position paper submitted. Evidently, for making good dismissal. Therefore, the Labor Arbiters contention is
his said Order, the Labor Arbiter cannot be faulted for upheld by the Court.
acting arbitrarily .
Granting arguendo that private respondents
Neither can grave error be ascribed to respondent absence engendered undue difficulty to the smooth
NLRC for handing down its decision without petitioners operations of petitioners business, considering the
Position Paper. By its inaction, petitioner was properly predicament of respondent Silvestre Germano, his
considered to have waived or forfeited the right to refute dismissal is unwarranted. In holding the constitutional
private respondents stance. Indeed, petitioner cannot mandate of protection to labor, the rigid rules of procedure
now be permitted to belatedly complain of a denial of due may sometimes be dispensed with to give room for
process. compassion. The doctrine of compassionate justice is
applicable under the premises, private respondent being
That petitioner was not represented by a lawyer in all
the breadwinner of his family. The Social Justice policy
the aforesaid proceedings was solely attributable to its
mandates a compassionate attitude toward the working
own negligence or inattention to the case. While the court
class in its relation to management. In calling for the
has held that representation by a lawyer is a fundamental
protection to labor, the Constitution does not condone
right of litigants, petitioner has nobody to blame but itself
wrongdoing by the employee, it nevertheless urges a
for its failure to secure the services of counsel resulting to
moderation of the sanctions that may be applied to him in
the dismissal of its case. In the case under scrutiny,
the light of the many disadvantages that weigh heavily on
petitioner was represented by a non-lawyer, Ramon
him like an albatross on his neck.[6]
Flores, who was present from the beginning of the case
but failed to efficiently follow-up the case until the The timeliness of petitioners appeal is an issue which
promulgation of judgment. While the right to due process this court endeavors to pass upon. While the rule
is available to all the parties, it does not countenance self- governing the instant Petition does not fix a period within
serving excuses devised to undermine orderly which to file an appeal, the yardstick to measure the
administration of justice. seasonableness of a Petition for Certiorari is the
reasonableness of the duration of time that expired from
After a careful study, and a thorough examination of
the commission of the act complained of, to the institution
the pleadings and supporting documents, it appears
of the proceedings to annul the same.[7] The court had the
decisively clear that private respondent Silvestre
occasion to hold that where no law can be applied, resort
Germano was illegally dismissed. While a prolonged
to the fundamental law can be had. The Constitution
absence without leave may constitute as a just cause of
provides that :
All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of
their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial and
administrative bodies.[8]
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.