Case Digest (G.R. No. L-23861) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
This case involves petitioners Gandara Mill Supply and its owner Milagros Sy, and respondent Silvestre Germano, an employee. The dispute arose from Germano’s absence from work without notifying his employer from February 6 to 11, 1995, because he chose to be with his wife who was about to deliver a child on February 12, 1995. Despite some financial assistance extended by Milagros Sy, the petitioner claimed difficulty managing the business with only two employees. When Germano resumed work, he was informed that someone had taken his place but was told he could return in June 1996. Germano then filed a case for illegal dismissal on February 27, 1995, with the Department of Labor and Employment. The petitioner offered a settlement of P5,000.00, which Germano refused. The Labor Arbiter gave the petitioner multiple extensions to submit position papers, but petitioner failed to comply, leading to a decision on January 29, 1996, ordering Milagros Sy to pay Germano P65,685.90 for separ
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-23861) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Parties and Background
- Petitioner Milagros Sy, owner of Gandara Mill Supply, a small business in Binondo, Manila, employed only two workers including Silvestre Germano (the private respondent).
- The private respondent failed to report to work from February 6 to February 11, 1995, without notifying his employer, to be with his wife who gave birth on February 12, 1995.
- Petitioner extended some financial assistance to the private respondent during this period.
- Absence and Suspension
- The private respondent’s absence, given the small workforce, caused operational difficulties for Gandara Mill Supply.
- After roughly two weeks, the private respondent returned to find that someone was hired to replace him, with a statement that he could be readmitted only by June 1996.
- Labor Case and Proceedings
- On February 27, 1995, the private respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before the Department of Labor and Employment.
- Petitioner offered P5,000.00 to settle the claim, which the private respondent rejected.
- The Labor Arbiter set deadlines for submission of position papers by petitioner: April 28, 1995, extended to May 5, 1995, and then again a final extension of 7 days from receipt of May 9, 1995 Order.
- Petitioner failed to file the position paper despite repeated opportunities, leading to a decision on January 29, 1996 ordering petitioner to pay private respondent P65,685.90 for separation pay, backwages, service incentive leave pay, and attorney’s fees.
- Appeal and NLRC Resolution
- Petitioner appealed on March 4, 1996, but failed to post the required cash or surety bond, arguing small business status and requesting exemption or delay.
- NLRC dismissed the appeal on May 22, 1996, for failure to comply with bond posting requirements.
- Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied on July 23, 1996.
- The private respondent filed motions for execution and the NLRC issued a writ of execution on September 13, 1996.
Issues:
- Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing petitioner’s appeal and not allowing petitioner an opportunity to prove that the private respondent was suspended rather than illegally dismissed.
- Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in awarding the private respondent P65,685.90, an amount petitioner claims is excessive.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)