G.R. No. 260650 - Uy vs. Commission on Elections and Jalosjos

Petitioner: Marinduque Mining & Industrial Corporation, a private company seeking to manage its workforce through clearance applications.
Respondents:

The dispute centers on two clearance applications filed by the petitioner within a short span of one month with the same MOLE Regional Office, both heard by labor arbiter Marianito Dilao and decided by Director Yanuario.

Filed by the petitioner to dismiss employee Ponciano Dabuet for habitual absenteeism and being absent without official leave (AWOL) since December 18, 1976.
Resulting Order (CDO-STF-APP Case No. 7-5-77, issued on September 22, 1977): Directed the petitioner to reinstate Dabuet and pay him backwages at P14.25 per day from August 1, 1977 until his reinstatement, pending appeal.

Filed shortly after the first, involving the termination of 460 employees, including Dabuet, on grounds of “serious reverses” in business.
Resulting Order (CDO-STF-APP Case No. 8-10-77, issued on September 29, 1977): Granted clearance for termination, which was not appealed and eventually became final and executory.

The petitioner appealed the first clearance application on October 10, 1977, keeping its order pending before higher authority.
Despite the pending appeal, the subsequent finalization and execution of the second clearance application effectively created conflicting directives regarding the employment status of Ponciano Dabuet.
The Solicitor General and his assistants, acting as counsel for the public respondents, argued that the petitioner had valid grounds for complaint, asserting that the orders were issued with grave abuse of discretion and in excess of jurisdiction.
The petitioners had, in their motion for reconsideration, drawn attention to the existence of the final and executory order in the second clearance application, an issue which was not verified by respondent Minister’s administrative record at the time.

Was AWOL since December 18, 1976.
Had claimed verbal sick leaves from May 10, 1977 to May 16, 1977 and from May 18, 1977 to July 31, 1977.
Recorded absences without leave on May 17, 1977 and from August 1, 1977 to September 5, 1977.

These facts formed the basis not only for the dismissal under the first clearance application but also for the justification of termination in the second clearance application.

Whether the order to reinstate employee Dabuet with corresponding backwages (from the first clearance application) remains enforceable given that a subsequent order terminating his employment (from the second application) had already become final and executory.
Whether the final and executory nature of the second clearance order renders the earlier pending appeal moot and legally ineffective.

Whether the respondent public officials, particularly the Minister of Labor and the Regional Director, committed grave abuse of discretion and acted in excess of their jurisdiction by issuing conflicting orders.
Whether the administrative handling of the clearance applications met the standards of due process, especially in verifying records between the two related applications.

Whether employee Dabuet is entitled to backwages despite his periods of unauthorized absences and AWOL, in light of the established principle that no work entails no pay.
Whether any possible set-off for justified absences (e.g., sick leaves) can be legally applied to mitigate or override the no-work-no-pay rule.