G.R. No. 111872 - People vs. Maturgo, Jr.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 111872)

Factual Background

The record showed that on April 18, 1977, private respondent failed to report for work because he was stricken with influenza. At that time, he was assigned to the night shift, and he was expected to report for work on the night of April 18, 1977. In the morning of April 18, he requested a co-worker, Cristeno Magrata, to deliver his handwritten note informing management of his inability to report due to illness. The note reached Armando Buenaventura, petitioner’s foreman. On April 25, 1977, private respondent reported for work and presented a medical certificate issued by Dr. Josefina Merano of the Caloocan Health Department certifying that he was under medical treatment for influenza for the period from April 18, 1977 to April 23, 1977.

Petitioner, however, refused to allow him to work. The company required an absent employee to secure an excuse slip from both the Personnel and Production Managers before the employee could be permitted to work. When private respondent presented the medical certificate to Robert Chan, the Production Manager, and Norberto Enciso, the Personnel Manager, both refused to issue the required excuse slip despite his plea to be allowed to report back for work. As a result, he was not allowed to work.

Clearance Proceedings Before the Labor Arbiter

After these events, in the third week of May 1977, private respondent received through the mail a xerox copy of petitioner’s clearance application. The application stated that he was terminated effective May 20, 1977 due to abandonment, on the theory that he was absent from April 19, 1977 and reported for work only on May 10, 1977. In response, private respondent filed a complaint on May 25, 1977 with the Department of Labor, Regional Office No. 4, opposing the clearance application and seeking relief for illegal dismissal.

On May 23, 1978, Labor Arbiter Ricarte T. Soriano rendered a decision that gave due course to petitioner’s clearance application to terminate private respondent’s services and dismissed private respondent’s complaint for illegal dismissal.

NLRC Proceedings and Decision

Private respondent appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission. On October 17, 1980, the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter’s decision. It ordered petitioner to reinstate private respondent to his former or equivalent position with full backwages counted from April 25, 1977 until reinstated, to be based on his latest rate of pay or the minimum rate under the law, whichever was more beneficial. The NLRC also denied petitioner’s clearance application for lack of merit.

In issuing its ruling, the NLRC adopted the Labor Arbiter’s factual findings but reached a different legal conclusion, holding that private respondent was illegally dismissed.

Issues Raised by Petitioner in the Petition for Certiorari

Petitioner anchored its certiorari petition on grave abuse of discretion and lack of jurisdiction, asserting that: first, it was not duly served with a copy of the notice of appeal from the Labor Arbiter to the NLRC, thereby depriving it of due process; second, the NLRC allegedly failed to consider whether private respondent’s appeal was seasonably filed, despite a serious timeliness question apparent from the face of the notice of appeal; and third, the NLRC’s reinstatement order with backwages was improper because the Labor Arbiter’s facts were not disturbed.

Service of Notice of Appeal and Alleged Due Process Violation

The Supreme Court found petitioner’s claim of lack of notice to be belied by the record. It noted that evidence showed a copy of private respondent’s notice of appeal and his memorandum on appeal were mailed to petitioner’s counsel of record, Atty. Fermin T. Madera, on July 20, 1978, as evidenced by registry receipt No. 34120, attached as Annex “1” of private respondent’s comment. The copy was received by Atty. Madera on July 27, 1978, through a Mrs. G. Elbinias, as shown by the registry return receipt. The Court also pointed out that Atty. Madera was associated with Judge M. Elbinias at the time, who was not yet appointed to the judiciary.

Even assuming arguendo that petitioner did not participate in the NLRC proceedings, the Court held that petitioner could not be unduly prejudiced, because the NLRC relied on the same evidence and arguments presented before the Labor Arbiter. The NLRC did not receive additional evidence or new arguments. Private respondent’s appeal raised issues anchored on the same grounds litigated below, and the Labor Arbiter’s findings were adopted; the NLRC merely differed in legal conclusion. The Court further reiterated the principle that there is no denial of due process if the decision is based on evidence adduced at the hearing or at least contained in the records.

Failure to Dismiss Alleged Untimely Appeal

On the issue of timeliness, the Court examined the dates of receipt. The Labor Arbiter’s decision was dated May 23, 1978, and private respondent obtained a xerox copy on July 6, 1978. Counting the ten-day period from July 6, 1978, the notice of appeal should have been filed on or before July 20, 1978, which fell on the tenth working day. Private respondent filed the notice of appeal on July 20, 1978, within the reglementary period.

The Court also considered petitioner’s argument that private respondent’s counsel received the copy only on August 21, 1978, and reasoned that in any case, when viewed from the date counsel received the decision, the notice of appeal was still filed on July 20, 1978, even before the ten-day period had started to run. The Supreme Court thus concluded that petitioner’s timeliness challenge did not justify disturbing the NLRC’s action.

The Court added that dismissal of an employee’s appeal on a purely technical ground was inconsistent with the constitutional mandate to protect labor. It emphasized that in labor cases, the interpretation and application of rules must proceed in a liberal spirit aligned with labor’s constitutional protection. It cited Estrada vs. NLRC and Phil. Blooming Mills Employees Organization vs. Philippine Blooming Mills Co., Inc., to underscore that procedural missteps in labor cases should not defeat substantive constitutional rights.

Legality of Dismissal: Abandonment and Justified Absence

The Court treated the principal issue as whether private respondent was illegally dismissed. It quoted the NLRC’s findings: private respondent had been able to show that at the time he suffered influenza on April 18, 1977, he sent a handwritten note of his illness through a co-worker, Cristino Magrata, who delivered it to Armando Buenaventura. On April 25, 1977, private respondent reported for work with the medical certificate issued by Dr. Merano covering the period of illness from April 18 to April 23. The NLRC found petitioner’s defenses unsubstantiated. Petitioner argued that private respondent absented himself without leave from April 18 to May 10, 1977 and thus abandoned his job, and that his past absences after being rehired confirmed abandonment. The NLRC rejected these arguments, holding that the absences from April 18 to April 23 were justified and excusable due to illness, supported by the medical certificate and the attending physician’s affidavit. It further found proper notice to petitioner of the illness through the responsible official who received the employee’s note.

On the legal requirement for abandonment, the Court reiterated that abandonment as a cause for termination requires a deliberate unjustified refusal of the employee to resume work. The refusal must be clearly shown, and mere absence is not sufficient. The evidence did not show such overt acts of refusal. Instead, the record showed private respondent reported for work on April 25, 1977 but was not allowed to work until he received petitioner’s clearance application. The Court also stressed that private respondent promptly filed a complaint seeking reinstatement on May 25, 1977, soon after he received the xerox copy of petitioner’s clearance application. The Court held it would be illogical for him to abandon his work and immediately sue for

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 111872)

The petition for certiorari sought review and reversal of an NLRC decision dated October 17, 1980 that ordered reinstatement of Virgilio M. Mantes with full backwages.
The NLRC ruled that Flexo Manufacturing Corporation was liable for illegal dismissal and denied the employer’s clearance application to dismiss the employee.
The Court denied the petition for grave abuse of discretion and affirmed the NLRC’s liability finding, but modified the backwages award.
The Court ordered lifting of an earlier restraining order and taxed costs against the petitioner.

Parties and Procedural Posture

The petitioner was Flexo Manufacturing Corporation, a firm engaged in the manufacture and printing of packaging materials.
The respondents were the National Labor Relations Commission and Virgilio M. Mantes.
Mantes had been employed by petitioner as a slitting machine operator from 1966 until termination on March 8, 1974, alleged to be due to abandonment.
Mantes was rehired on December 20, 1975 and assigned to his former work.
The case began when Mantes filed a complaint with the Department of Labor, Regional Office No. 4 on May 25, 1977, contesting illegal dismissal.
The Labor Arbiter Ricarte T. Soriano gave due course to petitioner’s clearance application on May 23, 1978 and dismissed Mantes’ complaint.
Mantes appealed to the NLRC, which reversed the Labor Arbiter on October 17, 1980 and ordered reinstatement with backwages.
Petitioner then filed the present petition for certiorari, alleging due process violations and excess in the backwages duration.

Key Factual Allegations

Mantes failed to report for work on April 18, 1977 due to influenza but was scheduled to report for the night shift.
In the morning of April 18, 1977, Mantes requested Cristeno Magrata, a fellow worker, to deliver a handwritten note to management informing them of his illness.
Magrata delivered the note to Armando Buenaventura, the foreman, before the start of the night shift work.
On April 25, 1977, Mantes reported for work and brought a medical certificate issued by Dr. Josefina Merano of the Caloocan Health Department certifying influenza treatment from April 18, 1977 to April 23, 1977.
Flexo’s claimed company procedure required an “excuse slip” to be secured from the Personnel Manager and the Production Manager before a previously absent employee could be allowed to work.
Mantes presented the medical certificate to Robert Chan (Production Manager) and Norberto Enciso (Personnel Manager), but both refused to issue the required excuse slip.
After April 25, 1977, Mantes was not allowed to work.
In the third week of May 1977, Mantes received through the mail a xerox copy of petitioner’s clearance application stating that he was terminated effective May 20, 1977 for abandonment, alleging absence from April 19, 1977 and reporting for work only on May 10, 1977.
Mantes opposed the clearance application by filing his complaint on May 25, 1977 seeking reinstatement.
The Labor Arbiter and NLRC treated as decisive the sequence of illness notice, Mantes’ presentation of the medical certificate, and petitioner’s refusal to permit his return to work.

Issues Raised in Certiorari

Petitioner argued it was denied due process because the NLRC allegedly entertained and resolved Mantes’ appeal without petitioner being notified of the filing and pendency of the appeal.
Petitioner contended the NLRC failed to address whether Mantes’ appeal was filed within the reglementary period, asserting that the appeal appeared untimely from the notice itself.
Petitioner claimed the NLRC committed an error in ordering reinstatement with full backwages for almost four (4) years, while the Labor Arbiter’s factual findings allegedly remained undisturbed.
The Court framed the central merits issue as whether Mantes was illegally dismissed, specifically whether the employer proved abandonment.

Applicable Procedural Rules

The Court considered the requirements of appeal under the Rules and Regulations Implementing the Labor Code, specifically Section 9, Rule XIII of Book V on serving a copy of the appeal on the appellee.
The Court also referred to Section 7, Rule XIII governing NLRC Procedures of Book V of the implementing rules, for issues relating to timeliness and procedural regulation of appeals.
The Court evaluated petitioner’s claim that failure to serve the appeal deprived petitioner of the opportunity to be heard and rendered the NLRC action void.

Service of Notice of Appeal

The Court held petitioner’s allegation that it never received the notice of appeal was belied by the record.
The record showed that a copy of Mantes’ notice of appeal and his memorandum on appeal was mailed to Atty. Fermin T. Madera on July 20, 1978.
The mailing was evidenced by a registry receipt number 34120, attached as Annex “1” of Mantes’ comment to the petition.
The same copy was received by the office of Atty. Madera on July 27, 1978, through Mrs. G. Elbinias, as shown by the registry return receipt.
The Court noted that Atty. Madera was the associate of Judge M. Elbinias, who was not yet appointed to the judiciary at the relevant time.
Petitioner denied receipt by claiming the address was incomplete in Mantes’ counsel’s submission.
The Court treated the service lapse argument as insufficient to nullify the NLRC proceedings because the controlling jurisprudence treated lack of service as non-jurisdictional.

Jurisprudence on Failure to Serve

The Court ruled that the service requirement defect, if any, did not justify dismissal because it was not jurisdictional.
The Court relied on J.D. Magpayo Customs Bro