Case Digest (G.R. No. 74229)
Facts:
Shoemart, Inc., and Romeo B. Perez, Petitioners, v. National Labor Relations Commission (First Division) and Maxima R. Soriano, Respondents, G.R. No. 74229, August 11, 1989, Supreme Court Third Division, Gutierrez, Jr., J., writing for the Court. The petition sought to reverse the NLRC decision of December 3, 1985 in the labor case involving respondent employee Maxima R. Soriano (the NLRC decision is also referenced in the record as modifying a labor-arbiter ruling in NLRC‑NCR Case No. 10-4473-83).Maxima R. Soriano was employed by Shoemart, Inc. on July 5, 1973 as a salesclerk‑invoicer. On March 17, 1981 Shoemart served Soriano a notice of termination for alleged abandonment of work for the period February 13 to March 17, 1981. Soriano filed a complaint with the Ministry of Labor and Employment (MOLE) — Case No. AB-4-10849-81 — for illegal dismissal and money claims. While that case was pending she was allowed to resume work on July 21, 1981, but the labor arbiter’s December 7, 1981 decision awarded Soriano ₱5,070.63 as backwages, service incentive leave and overtime pay, plus ₱500 attorney’s fee; an NLRC resolution dismissed an appeal on December 28, 1982, and this Court dismissed a certiorari petition in G.R. No. 63912 on May 18, 1983.
After reinstatement Soriano took successive leaves: a sick leave (Sept. 30–Oct. 14, 1981), a vacation leave (Oct. 21, 1981–Feb. 20, 1982) and a maternity leave (Feb. 21–Apr. 7, 1982), all of which were granted. She failed to return to work after her maternity leave; despite a note dated April 15, 1982 and an instruction from Shoemart to report on May 30, 1982, she remained absent without leave and without explanation. Shoemart terminated her for abandonment under its rules and the New Labor Code.
On October 7, 1983 Soriano filed a new complaint with MOLE (NLRC‑NCR Case No. 10‑4473‑83) alleging illegal dismissal, violations of PD 1571 and a collective bargaining agreement wage increase, and withholding of an SSS sickness benefit check. The labor arbiter’s April 26, 1985 decision found dismissal justified but ordered Shoemart to pay short payments and the SSS check totaling ₱199.26. The NLRC, however, on December 3, 1985 modified the labor-arbiter decision, holding the dismissal illegal for lack of procedural due process under B.P. Blg. 1...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the NLRC gravely abuse its discretion by modifying the labor‑arbiter decision and ordering reinstatement with backwages despite Shoemart’s asserted valid ground for termination (abandonment)?
- When an employer fails to observe the procedural requirements of B.P. Blg. 130, does that automatically mandate reinstatement with backwages even where the employee’s misconduct (abandonment and prolonged absence) is established?
- Should the NLRC’s monetary awards (₱76.56 short payment, ₱1.00 CBA wage increase per day, and ₱122...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)