Facts:

The case titled Arc-Men Food Industries, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission and Fabian Alcomendras revolves around a complaint for illegal dismissal filed by private respondent Fabian Alcomendras against petitioner Arc-Men Food Industries Corporation (AMFIC) on February 5, 1990. Alcomendras had been employed as a regular company driver since September 1985 and was allegedly terminated on January 23, 1990, without just cause. He claimed that during his employment, he did not receive the minimum wage, Emergency Cost of Living Allowance (ECOLA), or service incentive leave pay, and asserted that his termination was arbitrary and unjustified, opposing the provisions of Article 283 of the Labor Code.

In its defense, AMFIC contended that Alcomendras had actually abandoned his position, pointing out the company's limitations due to ongoing renovations and dependence on external suppliers, which had resulted in significant operational shutdowns. Between December 1, 1989, a

...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• Arc-Men Food Industries, Inc. (petitioner) is an export-oriented processing company engaged in the manufacture, production, and exportation of banana chips.
• Fabian Alcomendras (private respondent) was employed by the petitioner beginning in September 1985, initially as a process operator and later reassigned on October 1, 1987, as a company driver tasked with operating the firm’s single dump truck.
• The complainant (Fabian Alcomendras) alleged that during his employment he was deprived not only of the minimum wage but also of statutory benefits such as ECOLA and service incentive leave pay.

Allegations and Counterclaims

• Private respondent claimed that he was unlawfully terminated on January 23, 1990 despite his faithful service for over four years.
• He argued that petitioner's act of termination was arbitrary and contrary to Article 283 of the Labor Code, as amended by B.P. 130, contending that he should have been granted additional benefits instead of being dismissed.
• In his defense, petitioner contended that the employee had abandoned his work, asserting that the alleged termination was, in truth, a consequence of his failure to return to work after a temporary lay-off caused by the shutdown of the petitioner’s operations.

Operation Shutdown and Temporary Lay-off

• The petitioner disclosed that its plant operations encountered recurring problems and frequent temporary shutdowns due to equipment and machinery issues, as well as challenges in securing raw materials from independent suppliers.
• According to the Summary of Plant Operations, the plant last operated on December 1, 1989 and then was not in full operation from December 2, 1989 until February 25, 1990.
• Only two days of actual operation were recorded during this period – December 1, 1989 and February 20, 1990 – and employees, including private respondent, were advised not to report for work during the shutdown.

Documentary Evidence and Inconsistencies

• A Temporary Cash Advance Slip dated January 29, 1990, showed that private respondent requested and received a cash advance of P700.00 on “cash advance against salary deduction,” indicating his still-active employment status.
• Additionally, a return-to-work letter, dated February 25, 1990, was served on private respondent, directing him to resume work the following day, which he allegedly refused.
• Records also indicated that for the periods December 1–31, 1989 and January 1–20, 1990, private respondent had no involvement in his primary assigned task of hauling banana peelings but was still reported to have rendered services, suggesting he was engaged in alternative assignments during the temporary shutdown.

Procedural History and Evidence on Appeal

• The Labor Arbiter, after examining the evidence, concluded that the allegation of abandonment was contradicted by the immediate filing of the illegal dismissal complaint by the respondent on February 5, 1990.
• The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) upheld the Labor Arbiter’s finding, noting that petitioner failed to discharge its burden of proving that the termination was for a valid cause.
• Petitioner further alleged grave abuse of discretion by arguing that the NLRC and Labor Arbiter misinterpreted evidence such as the cash advance slip and return-to-work letter—documents that, according to petitioner, irrefutably established that the respondent was temporarily laid off rather than terminated.
• Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied, and the decision was later challenged on several grounds including procedural due process, misapprehension of facts, and an unsound legal basis, which formed part of the petition for certiorari.

Issue:

Whether private respondent was illegally dismissed or temporarily laid off due to a bona fide shutdown of operations.

• The central dispute revolves around the interpretation of events on January 23, 1990, with conflicting evidences of termination versus temporary lay-off.

Whether petitioner’s claim that private respondent abandoned his work is sustainable.

• It considers if the filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal is inconsistent with an abandonment defense.
• It questions whether the respondent’s refusal to report for work on February 26, 1990, in light of the notice to report, definitively proves abandonment.

The validity and interpretation of documentary evidence.

• The authenticity and significance of the Temporary Cash Advance Slip dated January 29, 1990, and the return-to-work letter dated February 25, 1990, are examined.
• Whether these documents support the petitioner’s contention that the respondent had not been dismissed but was, in fact, temporarily laid off.

Whether the Labor Arbiter and NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion by basing their findings on a non sequitur that the filing of an illegal dismissal complaint inherently establishes wrongful termination.

• This involves evaluating whether the evidence was appropriately considered, or if key countervailing evidence was improperly disregarded.

• Whether the dispute falls under the ambit of temporary suspension of operations which, by law, does not amount to termination, thereby affecting the entitlement to separation pay and other benefits.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)