Case Summary (G.R. No. 74229)
Procedural Background
On March 17, 1981, Shoemart issued a notice of termination to Soriano, citing abandonment of work from February 13, 1981, to March 17, 1981. Soriano subsequently filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and other monetary claims before the Ministry of Labor and Employment. After a series of hearings and an initial decision favoring Soriano by the Labor Arbiter on December 7, 1981, an appeal was made by Shoemart to the NLRC, which was dismissed on December 28, 1982. Soriano's reinstatement occurred on July 21, 1981, but she later filed for leaves due to pregnancy complications and did not return to work following maternity leave, leading to issues of unauthorized absence.
NLRC's Ruling
On April 26, 1985, the Labor Arbiter ruled that Soriano's dismissal was justified, but Shoemart was ordered to pay her certain unpaid wages amounting to P199.26. Soriano appealed this decision to the NLRC, which, on December 3, 1985, modified the Labor Arbiter's decision, ruling that Soriano's dismissal was illegal due to a lack of procedural due process as mandated by BP Blg. 130. Consequently, the NLRC ordered Soriano's reinstatement with backwages and determined that Shoemart must pay her short payments and SSS benefits.
Legal Standards of Dismissal
In addressing the legality of Soriano’s dismissal, the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of adhering to both substantive and procedural requirements for terminating an employee. According to Section 1, Rule XIV of the Implementing Regulations of the Labor Code, no worker should be dismissed except for just cause and after due process. The necessary components for procedural compliance include the provision of a written notice detailing the grounds for dismissal and an opportunity for the employee to respond.
Petitioner's Arguments
Shoemart contended that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion by ordering reinstatement despite the existence of just cause for Soriano’s termination. The petitioner acknowledged its failure to comply with the procedural requirements set forth by BP Blg. 130, arguing that such compliance would have resulted in "a farce" due to alleged bias against Soriano. However, the Court highlighted that due process is a fundamental safeguard, essential for ensuring fair treatment in employment matters.
Employee's Fault and Considerations
Although the Supreme Court acknowledged that Shoemart did not comply with the due process requirements, it noted that Soriano’s excessive absences were significant. The Court found that from May 30, 1982, to October 7, 1983, Soriano had not communicated valid reasons for her absence beyond what was described in her previous applications for maternity leave and sick leave. The Court considered Soriano’s prior dismissal for abandonment and her lack of re-engagement with her employer, which substantiated Shoemar
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 74229)
Case Citation
- G.R. No. 74229
- Date of Decision: August 11, 1989
- Philippine Reports Citation: 257 Phil. 396
- Division: Third Division
Parties Involved
- Petitioners: Shoemart, Inc. and Romeo B. Perez
- Respondents: National Labor Relations Commission (First Division) and Maxima R. Soriano
Background of the Case
- Maxima R. Soriano was employed by Shoemart, Inc. as a salesclerk-invoicer in the cosmetics department starting July 5, 1973.
- On March 17, 1981, Soriano received a notice of termination from Shoemart, citing abandonment of work from February 13, 1981, to March 17, 1981.
- Soriano filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and money claims with the Ministry of Labor and Employment (MOLE), leading to her reinstatement on July 21, 1981, while the case was pending.
- A decision by the Labor Arbiter on December 7, 1981, upheld Soriano's claims, ordering Shoemart to pay her various back wages and attorney's fees.
Procedural History
- Soriano continued her employment but took successive leaves due to pregnancy, including sick leave, vacation leave, and maternity leave.
- After her maternity leave ended, Soriano did not report back to work, leading to unauthorized absences.
- On April 15, 1982, she communicated to Shoemart that she had not yet delivered her baby but failed to return to work.
- On October 7, 1983, Soriano filed a new complaint alleging illegal dismissal and violations of labor regulations.