Case Digest (G.R. No. 55971)
Facts:
Flexo Manufacturing Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission and Virgilio M. Mantes, G.R. No. 55971, February 28, 1985, Supreme Court Second Division, Cuevas, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Flexo Manufacturing Corporation is a packaging‑materials manufacturer. Respondent Virgilio M. Mantes was employed by petitioner as a slitting‑machine operator from 1966 until he was discharged for abandonment on March 8, 1974; he was rehired on December 20, 1975 and resumed his former work. On April 18, 1977 Mantes, then on night shift, was stricken with influenza and gave a handwritten note to co‑worker Cristeno Magrata to deliver to management; Magrata gave the note to foreman Armando Buenaventura in the morning before the night shift began.
Mantes returned on April 25, 1977 with a medical certificate from Dr. Josefina Merano covering April 18–23, 1977, but Production Manager Robert Chan and Personnel Manager Norberto Enciso refused to issue the required excuse slip and would not allow him to work. Sometime in mid‑May Mantes received by mail a xerox copy of a clearance application filed by petitioner stating that he was terminated effective May 20, 1977 for abandonment (allegedly absent April 19–May 10). Mantes filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the Department of Labor, Regional Office No. 4 on May 25, 1977.
Labor Arbiter Ricarte T. Soriano, on May 23, 1978, granted petitioner’s clearance application and dismissed Mantes’ complaint. Mantes appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). On October 17, 1980 the NLRC reversed the labor arbiter and ordered reinstatement with full backwages from April 25, 1977 until reinstated; it denied the application for clearance. Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari in the Supreme Court (seeking review and reversal of the NLRC decision and alleging grave abuse of discretion), asserting three primary contentions: (1) petitioner was not served with a copy of the notice of appeal and so was deprived of due process; (2) the NLRC failed to inquire into timeliness of the appeal; and (3) the NLRC improperly ordere...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the NLRC violate petitioner’s right to due process by entertaining and resolving Mantes’ appeal despite petitioner’s alleged nonreceipt of a copy of the notice of appeal?
- Was Mantes’ appeal to the NLRC timely filed?
- Was Mantes illegally dismissed (i.e., was abandonment adequately proved) and, if so, what is the proper scope of ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)