G.R. No. 204288 - Demex Rattancraft, Inc. vs. Leron

In 1980, Rosalio A. Leron was hired by Demex Rattancraft, Inc. as a weaver, under a contractual arrangement based on job orders.
Leron was paid on a piece-rate basis and worked from Monday to Saturday, with occasional Sunday work demanded by the company.
Despite his long tenure, Leron did not receive standard benefits such as 13th month pay, service incentive leave, rest day pay, holiday pay, or overtime pay.

Sometime in June 2006, Leron was dismissed by Demex’s foreman, Marcelo Viray, and the personnel manager, Nora Francisco, on allegations that he had instigated a campaign to remove the foreman.
Prior to dismissal, Leron was served a memorandum concerning a dining chair he had woven for export to Japan, which had been rejected by Demex, leading the company to claim it would no longer avail of his services.
On June 28, 2006, Leron failed to report for work, an act later construed as absence without leave by his employer.

On June 29, 2006, the day following his absence, Leron filed an illegal dismissal complaint before the Labor Arbiter of Quezon City (docketed as NLRC NCR Case No. 00-06-05490-06).
Demex, interpreting his non-appearance as an absence without leave, sent multiple return-to-work notices: first on July 3, 2006 (served personally by a co-employee), another on July 7, 2006, and a final termination notice on July 12, 2006 declaring dismissal on the ground of abandonment.
The initial illegal dismissal case was subsequently dismissed by the Labor Arbiter on August 3, 2006 for improper venue, prompting Leron to refile in San Fernando City, Pampanga (NLRC Case No. RAB III 09-10461-06).

The Labor Arbiter, in a decision dated July 30, 2007, dismissed Leron’s complaint and held that his termination was valid while ordering the payment of 13th month pay amounting to ₱5,833.00.
On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) issued a resolution on January 30, 2009, affirming the Labor Arbiter’s decision but also awarding ₱5,000.00 in nominal damages for non-compliance with procedural due process. The NLRC found Leron’s absence as a valid ground for termination.
Leron’s subsequent petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals (CA) led to a Decision on February 9, 2012, which reversed the NLRC findings by declaring grave abuse of discretion. The CA held that:

The evidence failed to prove a clear intention on Leron’s part to sever the employer-employee relationship.
His filing of an illegal dismissal complaint the day after his dismissal negated any clear manifestation of abandonment.

The CA further ordered Demex to pay Leron accrued backwages, separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, and a proportionate 13th month pay, while deleting the award of nominal damages.
Demex moved for reconsideration, which was denied in the CA Resolution dated October 25, 2012.
On December 21, 2012, Demex filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court, assailing both the February 9, 2012 CA Decision and the October 25, 2012 Resolution.

Petitioners (Demex Rattancraft, Inc. and Narciso T. Dela Merced) contended that:

Leron’s unauthorized absences, non-compliance with successive return-to-work notices, and an alleged act of crumpling a return-to-work notice demonstrably indicated his intention to abandon his employment.
The return-to-work notices were not issued as an “afterthought” but rather because petitioners discovered issues regarding the earlier illegal dismissal case after the first notice was already sent.

His filing of an illegal dismissal case immediately following his dismissal evidenced his intent to contest rather than abandon his employment.
His inability to resume work was due to a strained relationship with petitioners, which stemmed from grievances over unfair treatment rather than an unequivocal intention to sever employment ties.

Whether there was sufficient evidence to establish that Leron abandoned his work, which requires:

A failure to report for work without a valid or justifiable reason, and
Clear and unequivocal evidence demonstrating his intent to sever the employer-employee relationship.

Whether petitioners, Demex Rattancraft, Inc. and Narciso T. Dela Merced, complied with the required procedural due process, particularly with respect to the twin-notice rule in the termination of employment.

The appropriate standard of review for questions of fact in a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, especially when there exists a variance in the findings of lower tribunals (NLRC versus Court of Appeals).