Case Digest (G.R. No. L-50296)
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-50296)
Facts:
Ricardo Alzosa v. National Labor Relations Commission and Metal Lux Industries, Inc., G.R. No. 50296, February 14, 1983, Supreme Court Second Division, Fernando, C.J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Ricardo Alzosa sought relief by way of certiorari against the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and his former employer Metal Lux Industries, Inc. after administrative labor proceedings concerning his dismissal.Petitioner was charged by respondent employer with habitual absences, habitual lateness, leaving his post without permission, and disobedience to his foreman and department head. The Labor Arbiter found for petitioner and ordered his reinstatement with full back wages at P225.00 monthly from the time of dismissal on May 2, 1975, until actual reinstatement. The dispositive reinstatement-with-back-wages portion of that Labor Arbiter decision was submitted in the Solicitor General’s comment to this Court.
Respondent employer appealed to the NLRC. The NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s reinstatement order but deleted the award of back wages, reasoning that the employer had shown grounds (serious misconduct, willful disobedience, gross and habitual neglect) and that the company’s policy on attendance and tardiness had not been proved to be known to the employee; the NLRC viewed dismissal as too severe but nonetheless denied back wages, warning the employee against recurrence. Petitioner filed the present petition for certiorari to review the NLRC’s deletion of back wages. The Solicitor General was required to comment and reproduced the Labor Arbiter’s full reinstatement-with-back-wages disposition. The NLRC’s order thus came under this Court’s review.
Issues:
- Did the NLRC err in denying back wages despite finding illegal dismissal and ordering reinstatement, thereby affecting the constitutional guarantee of security of tenure?
- If back wages are awardable, is petitioner entitled to full back pay for the entire period of exclusion or should the award be reduced in view of petitioner’s conduct after the Labor Arbiter’s reinstatement order?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)