Case Digest (G.R. No. 118159)
Facts:
Joneri Escobin, et al. v. National Labor Relations Commission, PEFTOK Integrated Services, Inc., Teodolfo E. Santos, and/or UP-NDC Basilan Plantations, Inc., G.R. No. 118159, April 15, 1998, Supreme Court First Division, Panganiban, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners (a group of security guards employed by PEFTOK Integrated Services, Inc. or PISI and deployed at UP‑NDC Basilan Plantations, Inc.) filed complaints for illegal termination by constructive dismissal with Regional Arbitration Branch No. 09 in Zamboanga. After failed conciliation, the Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision dated February 17, 1992, finding the dismissals illegal and awarding each successful complainant backwages, separation pay (one month per year of service where reinstatement was not appropriate), and attorney’s fees of P1,000, while absolving UP‑NDC Basilan Plantations, Inc. from joint liability.
On appeal the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), Fifth Division, reversed in a Resolution promulgated September 22, 1993, holding that petitioners’ repeated failure to report to PISI’s Manila head office and to explain their noncompliance amounted to insubordination, willful disobedience and abandonment; the NLRC therefore deemed the dismissals valid and denied relief. The NLRC denied reconsideration in its December 16, 1993 Resolution. Petitioners then filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court before the Supreme Court, assailing the NLRC Resolutions as being tainted with grave abuse of discretion.
The case centers on PISI’s decision (following UP‑NDC’s directive to reduce guards) to place many guards on “floating” or reserved status and to instruct them, by several letters dated April 8, May 2 and May 29, 1991, to report to PISI’s Manila head office for reassignment; petitioners, resident heads of families in Basilan, did not report or reply, and PISI issued dismissal notices dated June 28, 1991 on grounds of insubordination. Petitioners later explained inability to comply because of distance, lack of fare or living allowance, lack of assurance of comparable posting, and that they were not given copies of the initial memorandum placing them on floating status. The L...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the NLRC commit grave abuse of discretion in ruling that petitioners’ conduct constituted willful disobedience (insubordination) justifying dismissal?
- Did the NLRC commit grave abuse of discretion in ruling that petitioners abandoned their work?
- Were petitioners constructively dismissed, or were they actually dismissed without just cause?
- Are petitioners entitled to separation pay, back wages and attorneys’ fe...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)