G.R. No. 114161 - Canete vs. National Labor Relations Commission

Petitioner Virgilio M. Canete was employed by private respondent Vicente Ting/V.T. Marketing as a helper-utility man starting July 11, 1987.
It was alleged that although the actual working hours extended well beyond the standard eight (8) hours—from 7:30 a.m. until past 6:00 p.m.—the time cards were manipulated to reflect an eight-hour workday (8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.), resulting in underpayment.

On the morning of July 22, 1992, petitioner observed that some co-employees had started working before the scheduled time. He casually remarked about the early start and the consequent underpayment due to the prescribed time card entries.
This remark, though intended as a harmless observation, reached the management and set in motion adverse employment actions.

Later on the same day, around 6:00 p.m., petitioner was summoned by respondent’s manager, Joaquin Chua, and was informed that he should not report for work anymore, being told he would receive pay only for services rendered until then.
When petitioner sought an explanation, he was told that his remark was disruptive to the work routine of his co-employees.
The following day, upon reporting to receive his separation pay, petitioner was offered a sum of Six Thousand Pesos (P6,000.00) which he refused; subsequently, he was barred from further employment.

Approximately one month later, petitioner filed a complaint with the Department of Labor alleging illegal dismissal, underpayment of wages, non-payment of 13th month pay, and damages.
In contrast, private respondent contended that petitioner had repeatedly been absent from work and that on July 22, 1992, he was reprimanded for habitual tardiness and absences.
Respondent supported his claim of abandonment by submitting various time records evidencing missed work on several payroll periods, and also by asserting that petitioner failed to show up as required.

A Labor Arbiter, on March 8, 1993, ruled in petitioner’s favor by declaring that he did not abandon his job but was illegally dismissed. The arbiter awarded backwages, separation pay, attorney’s fees, and wage differentials due to underpayment.
Although petitioner’s counsel (Atty. Enrique Chua) received a copy of the Labor Arbiter’s Decision on March 15, 1993 via a third party (Nenette Vasquez), respondent’s appeal to the NLRC was initially dismissed on procedural grounds regarding timeliness.
Respondent then moved for reconsideration, explaining that the copy had been delivered to his office only on March 16, 1993, thereby establishing that the ten-day period for appeal commenced on that day.

In a Decision dated September 20, 1993, the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter’s ruling, holding that petitioner abandoned his work, but still awarded him a reduced separation pay of P9,715.80. Claims for underpayment of wages and damages were dismissed.
Petitioner subsequently moved for reconsideration and then elevated the case via a petition for certiorari, contending grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC in three areas:

The determination of the appeal’s timeliness based on the service of the Labor Arbiter’s Decision.
The characterization of his dismissal as abandonment rather than illegal dismissal.
The admittance of documentary evidence submitted by respondent for the first time on appeal, which petitioner argued deprived him of due process.

Whether the service of the Labor Arbiter’s Decision on Nenette Vasquez (who was not a clerk or person in charge of the attorney’s office) constituted proper notice to petitioner's counsel, Atty. Enrique Chua.
Whether the ten-day period for filing the appeal should have commenced on March 15, 1993 (the date Vasquez received it) or March 16, 1993 (when the copy was actually delivered to the clerk).

Whether petitioner’s actions constituted abandonment of his employment given his long-standing service since 1987 and subsequent immediate filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal.
Whether the reprimand on July 22, 1992, together with the alleged history of absenteeism, sufficed to imply an intent to abandon work.

Whether the NLRC’s admission and consideration of documents (such as daily time records, payrolls, and postmaster certifications) for the first time on appeal denied petitioner his due process rights.
Whether such evidence should have been precluded on the grounds of being introduced at a late stage.