Case Digest (G.R. No. 113099)
Facts:
The case involves Asia Fancy Plywood Corporation as the petitioner and the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), along with private respondents Roberto Mananap, Jose Rubio, Avelina Natalio, Gerardo Anover, Elizazbeth Celis, and Editha Retez. The events leading to the case began on March 7, 1991, when the private respondents, who were regular employees of the petitioner engaged in plywood lamination, filed a complaint with the Office of the Labor Arbiter in the National Capital Region, Manila. The complaint alleged unfair labor practices, illegal dismissal, harassment, violation of labor standards, and underpayment of wages. On April 17, 1991, the respondents amended their complaint to include additional complainants. Subsequently, on June 25, 1991, they further narrowed the focus of their complaint to illegal dismissal only. In response, the petitioner filed an answer on July 23, 1991, asserting that the respondents had not been dismissed but had simply failed to report...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 113099)
Facts:
Employment and Complaint Filing:
- Private respondents (Roberto Mananap, Jose Rubio, Avelina Natalio, Gerardo Anover, Elizabeth Celis, and Editha Retez) were regular employees of petitioner Asia Fancy Plywood Corporation, a company engaged in plywood lamination.
- On March 7, 1991, private respondents filed a complaint with the Office of the Labor Arbiter against petitioner for unfair labor practice, illegal dismissal, harassment, violation of labor standards, and underpayment of wages.
- The complaint was amended on April 17, 1991, to include more complainants, and further amended on June 25, 1991, limiting the case to illegal dismissal only.
Petitioner’s Defense:
- On July 23, 1991, petitioner filed its answer, asserting that private respondents were not dismissed or terminated but had voluntarily stopped reporting for work.
Labor Arbiter’s Decision:
- On December 3, 1991, the Labor Arbiter ruled that private respondents should report for work, and petitioner should re-accept them to their former or substantially equal positions without backwages.
Appeal to NLRC:
- On December 27, 1991, private respondents appealed the Labor Arbiter’s decision to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).
- On September 30, 1993, the NLRC modified the Labor Arbiter’s decision, ordering petitioner to reinstate private respondents and pay them backwages not exceeding two (2) years.
Issue:
- Whether private respondents were illegally dismissed by petitioner.
- Whether the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in ordering petitioner to pay backwages to private respondents.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court granted the petition and set aside the NLRC’s decision. The Court reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s decision, which did not award backwages to private respondents.
Ratio:
- (Unlock)