Case Digest (G.R. No. 74229) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
The case at hand involves a petition by Shoemart, Inc. and Romeo B. Perez against the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and Maxima R. Soriano. The judgment was delivered on August 11, 1989, by Justice Gutierrez, Jr. Maxima R. Soriano began her employment as a salesclerk-invoicer at Shoemart, Inc. on July 5, 1973. On March 17, 1981, she received a notice of termination due to alleged abandonment of work, with her absence recorded from February 13 to March 17 that year. In response, Soriano filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the Ministry of Labor and Employment, which eventually led to her reinstatement on July 21, 1981, while the case was pending. The Labor Arbiter ruled in her favor on December 7, 1981, awarding Soriano backwages and other benefits, and dismissing Shoemart’s appeal in 1982.After her reinstatement and following her difficult pregnancy, Soriano took several leaves of absence but failed to report to work after her maternity leave expired witho
Case Digest (G.R. No. 74229) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Maxima R. Soriano was employed by Shoemart, Inc. since July 5, 1973, initially as a salesclerk-invoicer.
- In March 1981, Shoemart terminated Soriano for alleged abandonment of work (from February 13, 1981, to March 17, 1981). Despite this, while the case was pending before the labor arbiter, Soriano was allowed to resume work in July 1981 at a Cubao store.
- Soon after her reinstatement and amid a difficult pregnancy, Soriano was granted successive leaves: first a 15-day sick leave in September 1981 due to threatened abortion, then a 4-month vacation leave in October 1981 (on her physician’s advice), and finally a 45-day maternity leave commencing February 21, 1982.
- After her maternity leave, Soriano failed to report back for work. Although she sent a notice on April 15, 1982 clarifying that she had not yet delivered her baby (possibly due to a miscalculation), she did not resume her duties starting May 30, 1982, and failed to communicate any explanation thereafter.
- Due to her prolonged and unexplained absence, Shoemart eventually terminated her employment for gross neglect and abandonment of work, a ground also upheld by the Labor Code.
- In October 1983, Soriano filed a complaint for illegal dismissal along with claims involving wage issues and withholding of benefits before the Ministry of Labor and Employment.
- The labor arbiter, in a December 1981 decision on her earlier complaint, had ordered Shoemart to pay her backwages and other monetary entitlements. However, on a subsequent case initiated in 1983, the arbiter ruled her dismissal was justified despite a monetary award (P199.26) for short payments and withheld benefits.
- The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) modified the earlier decision by reversing the dismissal as illegal on grounds of procedural due process violation under BP Blg. 130, ordering Soriano’s reinstatement with backwages, even though one commissioner dissented.
- Shoemart later filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied, prompting the present petition for certiorari challenging the NLRC ruling of reinstatement despite an apparent valid ground for termination.
Issues:
- Whether the employer’s failure to strictly comply with the due process requirements of BP Blg. 130 (i.e., issuing a proper notice of dismissal, affording the employee an opportunity to answer and be heard, and providing a written decision) renders the dismissal illegal, thereby entitling the employee to reinstatement with backwages.
- Whether Soriano’s prolonged unauthorized absences and conduct constitute an independent ground for just cause that justifies her termination, notwithstanding the employer’s procedural lapses.
- The extent to which the employee’s own misconduct (i.e., habitual and unexplained absences) should be taken into account when determining the appropriate remedy for an illegal dismissal.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)