Title
Flexo Manufacturing Corp. vs. National Labor Relations Commission
Case
G.R. No. 55971
Decision Date
Feb 28, 1985
Worker dismissed for illness-related absence; NLRC ruled illegal dismissal, affirmed by Supreme Court with modified backwages.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 55971)

Background of the Case

Virgilio M. Mantes was employed by Flexo Manufacturing Corporation as a slitting machine operator. He was initially hired in 1966, subsequently terminated in 1974 on the grounds of abandonment but rehired in 1975. On April 18, 1977, Mantes was unable to report for his night shift due to influenza, and he informed his supervisors through a handwritten note delivered by a colleague.

Events Leading to Termination

Upon his recovery, Mantes presented a medical certificate to his employer to justify his absence. He was denied the required excuse slip to resume work, leading to his absence beyond April 18. On May 20, 1977, a clearance application for his termination was sent out by the petitioner, citing abandonment. Mantes subsequently filed a complaint for illegal dismissal on May 25, 1977.

Labor Arbiter's Decision

The Labor Arbiter, Ricarte T. Soriano, ruled in favor of the petitioner on May 23, 1978, granting clearance to terminate Mantes. The decision was appealed by Mantes to the NLRC.

NLRC's Ruling

On October 17, 1980, the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter's decision, ordering Mantes' reinstatement with backwages. The NLRC found that Mantes had provided sufficient proof of his illness and had not abandoned his job, emphasizing that his absence was justified.

Grounds of Petitioner's Appeal

Flexo Manufacturing Corporation filed a petition, contending that the NLRC’s decision was marred by grave abuse of discretion, particularly highlighting:

  1. Lack of notification regarding the notice of appeal, which allegedly violated due process.
  2. Questioning the timeliness of Mantes' appeal to the NLRC.
  3. Contesting the basis for NLRC’s award of reinstatement and backwages.

Due Process and Notification Issues

The Supreme Court found that evidence indicated that Mantes' notice of appeal was properly served to Flexo’s counsel, thus countering claims of lack of notification. This service, backed by registry receipts, confirmed that the procedural requirements were fulfilled.

Appeal Timeliness

The NLRC's assessment of the timeliness of Mantes' appeal was upheld, as the notice of appeal was within the appropriate timeframe. The Court highlighted that dismissing the appeal for not serving a copy, if procedural lapses were present, would violate labor rights and constitutional protections.

Interpretation of Abandonment

The Court clarified that for abandonment to justify termination, there must be clear, intentional refusal to return to work. In this case, Mantes did not exhibit such intentions as evidenced by his immediate action of filing for reinstatement upon his dismissal.

Final Decision on Re

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.