G.R. No. 81471 - Chong Guan Trading vs. National Labor Relations Commission

Private respondent, Jose M. Chua, was employed as sales manager by petitioner Chong Guan Trading, a paper and paper products dealer owned by Mariano, Pepito, and Efren Lim.
Although he started working in 1960, his name was only registered with the Social Security System in 1972.

A customer accidentally dropped the store’s telephone directory, causing the top glass of the showcase to break.
Pepito Lim, upon noticing the taped broken top-glass, demanded an explanation from private respondent.
To cover for the customer’s mistake, private respondent admitted to accidentally breaking the top-glass.
Following this incident, Pepito Lim hurled “unprintable words and invectives” at private respondent.
There is a dispute regarding the events that followed:

Private respondent claimed that he was dismissed on account of the incident when Mariano Lim ordered him to leave the premises.
Petitioner contended that private respondent voluntarily left and subsequently abandoned his job by failing to report for work.

In November 1983, private respondent filed a complaint with the Office of the Labor Arbiter for illegal dismissal and non-payment of overtime and other benefits.
The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision on April 18, 1984:

Found that there was no illegal dismissal since private respondent was never formally terminated by petitioner.
Interpreted the altercation as a minor incident, not constituting dismissal.
Ordered reinstatement of private respondent without backwages, while granting some monetary benefits for service incentives and 13th-month pay.

Private respondent elevated the case to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).
The NLRC initially dismissed the appeal for being filed out of time, as the appeal was submitted 12 calendar days after receipt of the decision (May 15, 1984, versus the prescribed 10 calendar days).
Upon reconsideration, the NLRC gave due course to the appeal, considering the acceptable reason for the delay stemming from reliance on a footnote in the labor arbiter’s decision.
On December 29, 1987, the NLRC ruled in favor of private respondent:

Held that he was illegally dismissed by petitioner due to the “magnification” of the minor incident, which was used as a pretext to oust him.
Awarded reinstatement, three years’ backwages (or separation pay if reinstatement was not feasible), along with other benefits.

Petitioner interposed a petition challenging the NLRC decision, contending that:

The appeal was filed out of time and the NLRC lacked jurisdiction since the decision had become final and executory.
There was no illegal dismissal, emphasizing that private respondent voluntarily abandoned his job.

The central factual dispute revolves around whether private respondent was indeed dismissed or merely absent following a misunderstanding during the incident.

Whether the NLRC had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal given that it was filed 12 calendar days after receipt of the decision, contrary to the 10-calendar-day reglementary period under Article 223 of the Labor Code.
Whether the erroneous footnote in the labor arbiter’s decision could excuse the lateness of the appeal filing.

Whether private respondent was illegally dismissed by petitioner or if he merely abandoned his job following an episode of misunderstanding.
Whether the minor incident involving the accidental breaking of the showcase’s top-glass could justify the dismissal or any punitive action under the law.

Whether it is appropriate to order three years’ backwages and separation pay given that there was no conclusive evidence of an intentional dismissal by the petitioner.
Whether the NLRC’s findings, based on a perceived “scheme or plan” to oust private respondent, were sufficiently supported by credible evidence.