Case Digest (G.R. No. 174141)
Facts:
Pentagon Steel Corporation v. Court of Appeals, National Labor Relations Commission and Perfecto Balogo, G.R. No. 174141, June 26, 2009, Supreme Court Second Division, Brion, J., writing for the Court.The petitioner, Pentagon Steel Corporation, employed respondent Perfecto Balogo from September 1, 1979 until the events of August 2002, when Balogo was absent from work. The petitioner alleges Balogo was AWOL beginning August 7, 2002 and sent him several registered memoranda (August 12 and August 21, 2002, among others) demanding a written explanation; Balogo did not reply in writing but later presented medical certificates and a company-physician note asserting he was sick and fit to return. The petitioner required an examination by the company physician and ultimately refused to allow Balogo to resume work.
On September 13, 2002 Balogo filed a complaint with the Arbitration Branch of the NLRC for unpaid wages and benefits; he amended the complaint on January 20, 2003 to allege illegal dismissal and to pray for reinstatement. During conciliation, Balogo produced medical certificates; the petitioner disputed his compliance with company notice rules and insisted on the company physician’s clearance. Repeated attempts by Balogo to report for work (August 17, 19, 21, 23 and October 10 and 18, 2002) were allegedly rebuffed by the petitioner.
The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision on October 27, 2003 dismissing the illegal dismissal charge but awarding service incentive leave and 13th month pay (P5,166.66). The NLRC Third Division, however, on January 31, 2005 vacated and set aside the labor arbiter’s decision and found illegal dismissal, directing payment of separation pay, backwages, 13th month pay and service incentive leave; the NLRC denied the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration on March 31, 2005. The petitioner filed a special civil action for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (docketed CA-G.R. SP No. 89587). In a June 28, 2006 Decision the CA affirmed that dismissal was illegal but modified relief by ordering reinstatement and payment of full backwages (inclusive of allowances and other benefits) from the time compensation was withheld until actual reinstatement; the CA denied the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration in a Resolution dated August 15, 2006.
...(Pro-only)Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in considering statements or agreements made during conciliation/conciliation proceedings in reaching its decision?
- Whether the respondent was illegally dismissed (i.e., whether he abandoned his job or was constructively dismissed)?
- Whether the proper remedy is reinstatement with full backwages or separation ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)