Case Digest (G.R. No. 110452-54)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 110452-54)
Facts:
Kingsize Manufacturing Corp., and Charlie Co. v. National Labor Relations Commission, Anacorita Valde, Celsa Dizon, Teresita Oribiana, et al., G.R. Nos. 110452-54. November 24, 1994. Supreme Court Second Division. Mendoza, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners are Kingsize Manufacturing Corporation and its agent Charlie Co. Private respondents are several former employees of petitioners who worked primarily as sewers (some hired as early as 1978; others in 1987), and one, Juancho Bognot, who served as assistant cutter and later supervisor. Between June 1987 and January 1988 petitioners dismissed various employees for alleged abandonment; when several employees presented themselves they were reportedly barred from entering the workplace by petitioners’ representative, Edward (Charlie) Co.
Within days of their dismissal many of the private respondents obtained employment at First General Marketing Corporation (FGMC)—in several instances on the same day as their dismissal. Between September and November 1988 private respondents filed consolidated complaints with the Department of Labor alleging illegal dismissal and various wage and benefit claims. Petitioners answered that the employees had abandoned their jobs; they also alleged misconduct for Bognot.
The Labor Arbiter (Hon. Felipe T. Garduque II) rendered judgment on May 31, 1989, finding that, except for Bognot, the complainants had in effect quit to work for FGMC and dismissing their reinstatement claims; Bognot was found illegally dismissed and ordered reinstated with six months’ backwages and related monetary differentials. The Arbiter granted certain ECOLA, holiday, 13th-month and service incentive leave claims for a subset of complainants. Five complainants (Anacorita Valde, Judy Dreu, Lydia Llobit, Marlene Bognot, and Celsa Dizon) appealed the Arbiter’s finding of abandonment, praying for separation pay; petitioners appealed the Arbiter’s order in favor of Bognot.
On October 30, 1992 the NLRC (First Division) reversed the Arbiter, holding petitioners guilty of illegal dismissal and ordering reinstatement of all complainants without backwages (affirming the Arbiter as to Bognot). After motion for reconsideration, the NLRC (resolution of February 17, 1993) granted the five appellants backwages equal to three years’ salary; a subsequent request for reconsideration by petitioners was denied (April 22, 1993). Petitioners sought relief from the Court by way of a petition for certiorari to annul the NLRC decision and the two resolutions.
Issues:
- Did the NLRC gravely abuse its discretion in finding that petitioners illegally dismissed the private respondents by effectively ruling that abandonment was not proven?
- Did the NLRC gravely abuse its discretion in ordering reinstatement of the respondents (and awarding backwages to some) despite (a) the respondents’ apparent reduction of their demand to separation pay on appeal and (b) the fact that six complainants did not appeal the Labor Arbiter’s decision?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)