G.R. No. 76031 - Semira vs. Court of Appeals

Petitioner, IBM Daksh Business Process Services Philippines, Inc. (now known as Concentrix Daksh Business Process Services Philippines Corporation), is an outsourcing company providing customer care services for foreign clients.
Respondent, Rosallie S. Ribas, was employed by the petitioner as a customer care specialist, beginning on July 6, 2010.
During her employment, she accumulated several absences which later became the focus of an administrative proceeding.

On March 8, 2011, respondent was issued a Show Cause Memo citing her absence on March 1, 2, 5, and 6, 2011.

The memo stated that her absence for four consecutive days was classified as NCNS (No Call No Show) because she did not notify her immediate supervisor as mandated by the company’s code of conduct.
It was emphasized that absence without official leave (AWOL) was a violation if an employee failed to report to work for three or more consecutive days without prior notice.

Respondent submitted a written explanation on March 13, 2011, detailing her prolonged absence from February 23 to March 9, 2011.

She attributed her absence to a delicate pregnancy condition (threatened pre-term labor and vaginal spotting) and claimed she had informed her immediate manager through text messages on several dates (February 23, 26, 27, and again on February 28 and the subsequent night).
Despite her notifications, she claimed there was no response or further instructions from her superior.

Formal charges were filed against respondent for violation of the company’s code of conduct regarding attendance.
A hearing was held on March 16, 2011, where the imputed acts regarding her unauthorized absences were established.
Respondent was issued a termination letter effective April 8, 2011.

The termination letter cited her failure to report for work on specific dates (beginning March 1 and again on April 2) without proper notice, deeming it as serious misconduct and a clear violation of company policy.
The decision articulated that her repeated absences constituted gross and habitual neglect of duty.

Her absences were justified due to her delicate pregnancy and her son's sickness (bronchopneumonia on April 2 and 3, 2011).
She had properly notified her immediate supervisor about her circumstances.
The penalty of dismissal was excessive and disproportionate to the alleged offense.

The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision on April 23, 2013, dismissing her complaint for lack of merit.
On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the Labor Arbiter’s decision on June 28, 2013, finding her dismissal illegal.

The NLRC initially ordered reinstatement and payment of backwages.
Subsequently, through its Resolution on August 30, 2013, the NLRC partially reconsidered and modified its decision:

ii. Despite the justification, for reasons of equity and compassion, it ordered reinstatement without any award of backwages.

Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 132743 questioning the NLRC's August 30, 2013 Resolution.

Petitioner argued that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering reinstatement despite substantial findings of a valid dismissal.

Respondent, on November 28, 2013, filed her own petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 132908 challenging the same NLRC Resolution.

She maintained that the dismissal was illegal and contended that she should be reinstated with backwages.
Notably, respondent argued that the penalty was unduly harsh and not commensurate with her alleged misconduct.

The CA did not consolidate the two petitions despite clear notice from the petitioner.
On January 20, 2015, the CA’s Eleventh Division issued a decision denying petitioner’s petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 132743 and affirmed the NLRC's Resolution for reinstatement without backwages.
On December 18, 2015, the CA Sixth Division rendered a different decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 132908:

It granted respondent’s petition by setting aside the NLRC Resolution.
The CA ruled that respondent was illegally dismissed and should be reinstated with payment of backwages.
It further provided that, if reinstatement was no longer feasible, petitioner would be ordered to pay separation pay.

The CA Decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 132743 had already attained finality and executory status when petitioner manifested its abandonment of further review.
The conflict between the two CA decisions, arising from the failure to consolidate, resulted in inconsistent rulings concerning the validity of the dismissal, the award of backwages, and differing bases for reinstatement.

Whether the CA Sixth Division erred in reversing and setting aside the NLRC Resolution by issuing a decision that conflicted with the final and executory decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 132743.

Specifically, the issue centers on the procedural mistake of failing to consolidate two related petitions involving the same set of facts, parties, and legal questions.
The question also involves whether the conflicting decisions—one upholding the dismissal as valid and the other declaring it illegal—can both stand, especially given the doctrine of finality of judgment.