Case Digest (G.R. No. 153148)
Facts:
Shie Jie Corporation/Seastar Ex-Im Corp., Bien Yang, Michael Yang and Sammy Yang v. National Federation of Labor, et al., G.R. No. 153148, July 15, 2005, Supreme Court Third Division, Sandoval-Gutierrez, J., writing for the Court.The petitioners are Shie Jie Corporation/Seastar Ex-Im Corporation and its principals Bien Yang, Michael Yang and Sammy Yang; the respondents are the National Federation of Labor and ten rank-and-file employees (named respondents) who worked as fish processors. The dispute began when the employees filed a complaint for unfair labor practice, illegal dismissal and unpaid benefits with the Labor Arbiter, Regional Branch No. IX, Zamboanga City, docketed as NLRC Case No. RAB-09-03-00105-99.
According to respondents, on July 20, 1998 the Yangs confronted them about union activities and ordered them home; the next day petitioners suspended them for one week (July 22–28, 1998, except Wilfredo Toribio who was suspended two weeks). Upon returning, respondents were served memoranda terminating their services for abandonment. Petitioners answered that 13 employees staged a walkout on July 20, 1998 and that several respondents either resigned (letters dated July 27, 1998) or abandoned work, justifying suspension and later termination for abandonment.
The Labor Arbiter (August 20, 1999) found that petitioners committed unfair labor practice and that the named respondents were illegally dismissed, awarding P843,960.62. On appeal the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the Labor Arbiter and dismissed the complaint (Decision dated April 27, 2000), and denied reconsideration (Resolution June 29, 2000). The employees then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 61322) on November 29, 2001 reversed the NLRC, reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s decision (with modifications as to certain monetary awards), and held that petitioners failed to prove valid resignation or abandonment, citing the employer’s burden under Art. 277, par. (b) of the Labor Code and precedents on resignation and abandonment. Petitioners’ mo...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did petitioners prove by substantial evidence that the respondents voluntarily resigned from their employment?
- Did petitioners prove by substantial evidence that the respondents abandoned their work, justifying...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)