Facts:

The case involves Diana E. Belaunzaran as the petitioner and the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), Casino Espanol de Cebu, Glenn Ivan Loop, and Pablo Pido, Jr. as the respondents. The events leading to the case began when Diana E. Belaunzaran was employed by Casino Espanol de Cebu, Inc. on February 1, 1984, as the Food and Beverage Manager and was later promoted to General Manager with a monthly salary of P8,000.00, a signing privilege that increased from P1,000.00 to P2,000.00, and a 40% discount on restaurant chits. In August 1991, she applied for vacation leave from September 9, 1991, to October 15, 1991, which was approved by Pablo Pido, Jr. On October 14, 1991, while in Spain, she requested an extension of her leave until November 10, 1991, which was denied by management. Belaunzaran returned to the Philippines on November 12, 1991, and reported for work on November 16, 1991. However, two days later, she was informed by Loop and Pido, Jr. that the Board of Dire...

Facts:

Employment and Promotion

• Petitioner Diana E. Belaunzaran was hired by private respondent Casino Espanol de Cebu, Inc. on February 1, 1984, initially as Food and Beverage Manager.
• She was later promoted to General Manager with a monthly salary of P8,000.00, complemented by a signing privilege (initially P1,000.00, later increased to P2,000.00) and a 40% discount on restaurant chits.

Vacation Leave and Communication

• In August 1991, petitioner applied for vacation leave effective from September 9 to October 15, 1991, which was approved by private respondent Pablo Pido, Jr. on behalf of management.
• While in Spain joining her husband, on October 14, 1991, petitioner sent a wire to private respondent Glen Ivan Loop in Cebu City requesting an extension of her vacation leave until November 10, 1991.
• Management disapproved the extension request, communicating their decision on November 4, 1991.

Return and Meeting with Management

• Petitioner returned to the Philippines on November 12, 1991 and reported for work on November 16, 1991.
• Two days after her return, she was informed by Loop and Pido, Jr. that the Board of Directors had agreed to ask her to resign.
• The resignation proposal stemmed from complaints by several employees (including the union president and storekeepers) regarding her failure to properly investigate losses of stocks and supplies entrusted to her management.

Board Meeting and Subsequent Actions

• On November 18, 1991, petitioner attended a meeting of the Board of Directors where she was briefed on the numerous complaints against her.
• The Board advised her to resign rather than undergo a formal investigation, explaining that such an inquiry would likely worsen the strained employee relations.
• Petitioner indicated her willingness to consider the proposal but subsequently did not report back to work.

Absences and Management’s Response

• Petitioner visited Casino Espanol on December 14, 1991 only to file a sick leave notice effective from November 27 to December 31, 1991.
• This sick leave was disapproved in a letter dated December 16, 1991 wherein management highlighted her unauthorized absences and her failure as a manager to exemplify proper work ethics.
• Private respondents simultaneously requested that petitioner either submit her resignation or provide a written explanation addressing the complaints within ten days.
• Instead of complying with these directives, petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.

Allegations and Counterclaims

• Private respondents contended that petitioner had not been dismissed but had abandoned her job, citing her prolonged unauthorized absences and loss of trust.
• The hiring of Eduardo Garcia as a consultant during the period when petitioner was absent was justified due to the club’s need to prepare for major annual events.
• Petitioner argued that she was in fact illegally dismissed and should be awarded not only separation pay and the 13th-month pay for 1991 but also backwages, as well as moral and exemplary damages.

Procedural History

• Labor Arbiter Nicasio AniAon, in his decision, declared private respondents not guilty of illegal dismissal and cleared petitioner of abandonment.
• However, he nevertheless directed the payment of separation pay equivalent to one month’s salary for every year of service, along with the 13th-month pay for 1991.
• The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s decision in toto.
• Petitioner elevated the issue by filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, arguing that the NLRC acted arbitrarily, capriciously, and committed grave abuse of discretion in disregarding clear evidence.

Grounds for the Petition

• Petitioner claimed that the NLRC rendered conclusions not supported by evidence, ignored material facts, and unjustly dismissed her claim for additional damages (backwages, moral, and exemplary) under the premise of illegal dismissal.
• Notably, petitioner had not filed a motion for reconsideration of the NLRC decision—a requirement for certiorari under the established rules.

Issue:

The Nature of Petitioner’s Termination

• Was petitioner illegally dismissed, or did she effectively abandon her job by failing to report back after the resignation proposal?
• Does the Board of Directors’ proposal for her to resign constitute a constructive dismissal?

Entitlement to Additional Remedies

• Is petitioner entitled to backwages in addition to the awarded separation pay and 13th-month pay?
• Can moral and exemplary damages be awarded in cases where dismissal is alleged, particularly in the absence of bad faith, oppressive conduct, or malice?

Appropriateness of the Administrative Findings

• Were the findings of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC supported by substantial evidence?
• Did the administrative bodies exercise their discretion appropriately and in accordance with employment law principles?

---

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)