Case Digest (G.R. No. L-69628)
Facts:
Pedro B. Narag v. The National Labor Relations Commission, and Airborne Security Services, Inc., G.R. No. 69628, October 28, 1987, First Division, Gancayco, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Pedro B. Narag was employed by private respondent Airborne Security Services, Inc. in several stints, the last beginning in November 1980. While assigned as security‑in‑charge at Union Glass and Container Corporation (UGCC), an incident occurred in July 1982 involving a visitor and UGCC employees. On July 16, 1982 Airborne, acting on a UGCC request, issued a memorandum relieving Narag “effective upon receipt” and placed him under headquarters disposition; a replacement was assigned to his post.After July 16 Narag reported at Airborne’s central office through July 31, 1982 but received no assignment and, when he sought pay for July 16–31, was told his services had been terminated and he had no salary due. On August 5, 1982 Narag filed a complaint with the NLRC (Labor Arbiter Raymundo R. Valenzuela) for illegal dismissal and other claims. On April 17, 1984 the labor arbiter found Narag constructively dismissed and ordered his reinstatement with one year backwages (and reimbursement of a P240 cash deposit if he forewent reinstatement).
Airborne received a copy of the arbiter’s decision on April 30, 1984 and filed a “Partial Appeal” with the NLRC on May 11, 1984. On December 27, 1984 the NLRC, Third Division, modified the arbiter’s decision by declaring that Narag was not dismissed or suspended but merely placed under headquarters disposition and that he had opted not to work from July 16–31, 1982; the NLRC ordered reinstatement but denied backwages. Petitioner then filed a petition to review on certiorari with the Supreme Court contesting the NLR...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the NLRC have jurisdiction to entertain and resolve the appeal filed by Airborne Security Services, Inc., given the ten‑day reglementary period in Article 223 of the Labor Code?
- On the merits, was Pedro B. Narag constructively and illegally dismissed and entitled to reinstatement with one year backwages (or reimbursement of his cash depo...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)