Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1982 > August 1982 Decisions > G.R. No. L-60067 August 19, 1982 - SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

201 Phil. 477:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-60067. August 19, 1982.]

SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and RODOLFO CALAYAG, Respondents.

Siguion-Reyna, Montecillo & Ongsiako Law Offices for Petitioner.

SYNOPSIS


In a decision, the Labor Arbiter ordered petitioner San Miguel Corporation to immediately reinstate respondent Rodolfo Calayag to his former position without loss of seniority rights and other benefits but without back-wages. Calayag appealed from said decision for the purpose of getting backwages but he did not apprise petitioner of this appeal. Petitioner only learned of the appeal when it was served with a copy of the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) granting Calayag back-wages. Petitioners thus filed the instant petition praying for the annulment of the NLRC’s decisions and the dismissal of Calayag’s complaint for alleged illegal termination of employment.

The Supreme Court set aside the decision of the NLRC and affirmed that of the Labor Arbiter holding that the NLRC erred in resolving the appeal without hearing petitioner, who was entitled to present its side of the case.


SYLLABUS


1. LABOR AND SOCIAL LEGISLATIONS; LABOR LAWS; APPEAL TO THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSIONS; PROCEDURE. — Section 7 Rule XIII (NLRC Procedures) of the Rules and Regulations implementing the Labor Code provides that the appellant should furnish the appellee with a copy of his appeal. Undoubtedly, that rule was ordained in the interest of fair play and to preclude the NLRC from making an ex-parte resolution of the appeal which it did in this case.

2. ID.; ID.; TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT; COMPUTATION OF ABSENCES WITHOUT LEAVE IN CASE AT BAR. — The Labor Arbiter found that Calayag was absent without leave for ten days. It is a rule of the company that for nine absences without leave within a calendar year an employee may be dismissed. Notwithstanding that role, the Labor Arbiter ordered Calayag’s reinstatement but without backwages. The NLRC directed the payment of backwages in addition to reinstatement. As Calayag was receiving P1,040 a month, his backwages as of February, 1982 amounted already to P29,120. Both the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC opined that nine-absences rule means that the prior absences, which had already been penalized with suspension without pay, should be excluded from the computation of the nine absences required for dismissal because their inclusion would supposedly place the employee "twice in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense." That opinion is not correct. The rule prescribes graduated or cumulative penalties (culminating in dismissal) for each day of absence without leave. It is immaterial that the absences included in the nine absences required for dismissal had already been penalized with suspension. They are included in the computation of the nine absences.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; REINSTATEMENT WITHOUT BACKWAGES HELD EQUITABLE IN CASE AT BAR. — The Labor Arbiter chose to reinstate Calayag in spite of the fact that he could be dismissed. He did so presumably because dismissal would be a very drastic penalty under the facts of this case. (See San Miguel Corporation v. Secretary of Labor, L-39195, May 16, 1975, 64 SCRA 56, 62.) On the other hand, to grant Calayag backwages in addition to reinstatement is not a just and equitable solution of the controversy.


D E C I S I O N


AQUINO, J.:


This is a case on termination of employment. A Labor Arbiter in his decision of December 15, 1980 ordered San Miguel Corporation to reinstate immediately Rodolfo Calayag to his former position of receiver/issuer in the containers section, materials department of the company’s plant at Polo (Valenzuela), Bulacan without loss of seniority rights and other benefits but without backwages (p. 43, Rollo).

San Miguel Corporation appealed from that decision but withdrew its appeal in a motion dated March 9, 1981 (p. 106, Rollo). Calayag also appealed from that decision only for the purpose of getting backwages but he did not apprise San Miguel Corporation of his appeal.

The company allegedly learned of the appeal only on January 13, 1982 when it was served with a copy of the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission dated November 11, 1981, granting Calayag backwages from November 1, 1979 up to his reinstatement.

On March 31, 1982, San Miguel Corporation filed in this Court the instant petition for certiorari wherein it prayed for the annulment of the NLRC’s decision and the dismissal of Calayag’s complaint for alleged illegal termination of employment.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

It is obvious that the NLRC erred in deciding Calayag’s appeal without hearing San Miguel Corporation. It was entitled to present its side of the case.

Section 7, Rule XIII (NLRC Procedures) of the Rules and Regulations implementing the Labor Code provides that the appellant should furnish the appellee with a copy of his appeal. Undoubtedly, that rule was ordained in the interest of fair play and to preclude the NLRC from making an ex parte resolution of the appeal which it did in this case.

Calayag was dismissed by San Miguel Corporation for repeated absences without leave. The dismissal was effected after the assistant director of the National Capital Region of the Ministry of Labor had given clearance for such dismissal (pp. 39-40, Rollo).

The Labor Arbiter found that Calayag was absent without leave for ten days (p. 41, Rollo). It is a rule of the company that for nine absences without leave within a calendar year and employee may be dismissed. Notwithstanding that rule, the Labor Arbiter ordered Calayag’s reinstatement but without backwages.

The NLRC directed the payment of backwages in addition to reinstatement. As Calayag was receiving P1,040 a month, his backwages as of February, 1982 amounted already to P29,120 (p. 49, Rollo).

Both the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC opined that the nine absences rule means that the prior absences, which had already been penalized with suspension without pay, should be excluded from the computation of the nine absences required for dismissal because their inclusion would supposedly place the employee "twice in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense"

That opinion is not correct. The rule prescribes graduated or cumulative penalties (culminating in dismissal) for each day of absence without leave. It is immaterial that the absences included in the nine absences required for dismissal had already been penalized with suspension. They are included in the computation of the nine absences.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

The Labor Arbiter chose to reinstate Calayag in spite of the fact that he could be dismissed. He did so presumably because dismissal would be a very drastic penalty under the facts of this case. (See San Miguel Corporation v. Secretary of Labor, L-39195, May 16, 1975, 64 SCRA 56, 62.)

On the other hand, to grant Calayag backwages in addition to reinstatement is not a just and equitable solution of the controversy.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the NLRC is set aside and that of the Labor Arbiter is affirmed. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Concepcion Jr., Guerrero, Abad Santos, De Castro and Escolin, JJ., concur.

Separate Opinions


BARREDO, J., concurring:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

I concur because San Miguel was notified of Calayag’s appeal and the appeal of San Miguel was withdrawn anyway.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. : www.chanroblesprofessionalreview.com
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com
ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online : www.chanroblescpareviewonline.com
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man : www.chanroblesbar.com/memoryman





August-1982 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.M. No. 921-MJ August 19, 1982 - ANTONIO C. LUCERO v. CARLOS B. SALAZAR

    201 Phil. 396

  • A.M. No. P-1518 August 19, 1982 - EROTIDO O. DOMINGO v. ROMEO R. QUIMSON

  • A.M. No. 2247-MJ August 19, 1982 - PEDRO G. VALENTIN v. MARIANO P. GONZALES

    201 Phil. 401

  • A.M. No. 2385-MJ August 19, 1982 - JONATHAN A. LUZURIAGA v. JESUS B. BROMO

    201 Phil. 408

  • G.R. No. L-34081 August 19, 1982 - PHIL. SUGAR INSTITUTE v. ASSOC. OF PHILSUGIN EMPLOYEES

    201 Phil. 416

  • G.R. No. L-35440 August 19, 1982 - RUFINO GERALDE v. ANDRES Y. SABIDO

    201 Phil. 418

  • G.R. No. L-38352 August 19, 1982 - ADELA J. CAÑOS v. E.L. PERALTA

    201 Phil. 422

  • G.R. No. L-46499 August 19, 1982 - TRADE UNIONS OF THE PHIL. AND ALLIED SERVICES v. AMADO G. INCIONG

    201 Phil. 427

  • G.R. No. L-48057 August 19, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICTORIO VENEZUELA

    201 Phil. 433

  • G.R. No. L-50402 August 19, 1982 - PHIL. COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL BANK v. NAT’L. MINES & ALLIED WORKERS UNION

    201 Phil. 441

  • G.R. No. L-51194 August 19, 1982 - CENTRAL AZUCARERA DE LA CARLOTA, INC. v. AMADO G. INCIONG

    201 Phil. 451

  • G.R. No. L-51494 August 19, 1982 - JUDRIC CANNING CORPORATION v. AMADO G. INCIONG

    201 Phil. 456

  • G.R. No. L-52720 August 19, 1982 - UNITED CMC TEXTILE WORKERS UNION v. JACOBO C. CLAVE

    201 Phil. 463

  • G.R. No. L-58287 August 19, 1982 - EDUARDO VILLANUEVA v. LORENZO MOSQUEDA

    201 Phil. 474

  • G.R. No. L-60067 August 19, 1982 - SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

    201 Phil. 477

  • G.R. No. L-26940 August 21, 1982 - PAULINA SANTOS, ET AL. v. GREGORIA ARANZANSO, ET AL.

    201 Phil. 481

  • G.R. No. L-27130 August 21, 1982 - PAULINA SANTOS DE PARREÑO v. JULIO VILLAMOR, ET AL.

    201 Phil. 487

  • G.R. No. L-30697 August 2, 1982 - GILBERTO M. DUAVIT v. HERMINIO MARIANO

    201 Phil. 488

  • G.R. No. L-35705 August 21, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO M. UMALI

    201 Phil. 494

  • G.R. No. L-36222 August 21, 1982 - AUGUST O. BERNARTE, ET AL. v. SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE, ET AL.

    201 Phil. 513

  • G.R. No. L-39007 August 21, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CAMILO RAMIREZ

    201 Phil. 519

  • G.R. No. L-40621 August 21, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AQUILINO PADUNAN

    201 Phil. 525

  • G.R. No. L-56962 August 21, 1982 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ANDRES B. PLAN

    201 Phil. 541

  • G.R. No. L-58805 August 21, 1982 - ROMULO BOLAÑOS, ET AL. v. RAFAEL DELA CRUZ, ET AL.

    201 Phil. 549

  • G.R. No. L-59493 August 21, 1982 - MANUEL SAN ANDRES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    201 Phil. 552

  • G.R. No. L-59823 August 21, 1982 - GETZ CORPORATION PHILS., INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    201 Phil. 558

  • G.R. No. L-38753 August 25, 1982 - RAFAEL S. MERCADO v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF RIZAL, BRANCH V, ET AL.

    201 Phil. 565

  • G.R. No. L-44031 August 26, 1982 - SONIA VILLONES v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

    201 Phil. 574

  • G.R. No. L-47099 August 26, 1982 - IGNACIO DELOS ANGELES v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, ET AL.

    201 Phil. 581

  • G.R. No. L-59582 August 26, 1982 - JESUS M. PAMAN v. RODRIGO DIAZ, ET AL.

    201 Phil. 597

  • A.M. No. 78-MJ August 30, 1982 - BUENAVENTURA B. MARTINEZ v. TEODORO O. PAHIMULIN

    201 Phil. 602

  • A.M. No. P-1722 August 30, 1982 - BENIGNO CABALLERO v. WALTER VILLANUEVA

    201 Phil. 606

  • G.R. No. L-25933 August 30, 1982 - PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY v. FREE TELEPHONE WORKERS UNION, ET AL.

    201 Phil. 611

  • G.R. No. L-27657 August 30, 1982 - PAULINA SANTOS DE PARREÑ0 v. GREGORIA ARANZANSO

    201 Phil. 623

  • G.R. No. L-29268 August 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CESARIO C. GOLEZ, ET AL.

    201 Phil. 632

  • G.R. No. L-33515 August 30, 1982 - J. M. TUASON & CO., INC. v. RAYMUND FAMILARA

    201 Phil. 635

  • G.R. No. L-37686 August 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN L. ARCENAL

    201 Phil. 640

  • G.R. No. L-39298 August 30, 1982 - SULPICIO G. PAREDES v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, ET AL.

    201 Phil. 644

  • G.R. No. L-41700 August 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARTE SIBAYAN

    201 Phil. 648

  • G.R. No. L-42447 August 30, 1982 - PIONEER INSURANCE AND SURETY CORPORATION v. SERAFIN E. CAMILON

    201 Phil. 658

  • G.R. No. L-42660 August 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARSENIO OLMEDILLO

    201 Phil. 661

  • G.R. No. L-43427 August 30, 1982 - FELIPE N. CRISOSTOMO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    201 Phil. 666

  • G.R. No. L-45472 August 30, 1982 - HEIRS OF SATURNINA AKUT v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    201 Phil. 680

  • G.R. No. L-46762 August 30, 1982 - PHILIPPINE AIRLINES SUPERVISORS’ ASSOCIATION v. AMADO GAT INCIONG, ET AL.

    201 Phil. 689

  • G.R. No. L-48975 August 30, 1982 - RAFAEL B. MAGPANTAY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    201 Phil. 702

  • G.R. No. L-54068 and 54142 August 30, 1982 - ST. LUKE’S HOSPITAL, INC. v. MINISTER OF LABOR, ET AL.

    201 Phil. 706

  • G.R. No. L-54094 August 30, 1982 - ALABANG DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ET AL. v. MANUEL E. VALENZUELA, ET AL.

    201 Phil. 727

  • G.R. No. L-54760 August 30, 1982 - MICAELA C. AGGABAO v. LETICIA U. GAMBOA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-55801 August 30, 1982 - LEONARDO MAGAT v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-56973 August 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SABENIANO LOBETANIA

    201 Phil. 762

  • G.R. No. L-56995 August 30, 1982 - RAYMUNDO R. LIBRODO v. JOSE L. COSCOLLUELA, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-59548 August 30, 1982 - DAVAO LIGHT & POWER CO., INC. v. PACITA CAÑIZARES-NYE

    201 Phil. 777

  • G.R. No. L-59821 August 30, 1982 - ROWENA F. CORONA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    201 Phil. 782

  • G.R. No. L-60342 August 30, 1982 - FRANCISCO S. BANAAD v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    201 Phil. 788

  • G.R. No. L-28237 August 31, 1982 - BAY VIEW HOTEL, INC. v. KER & CO., LTD., ET AL.

    201 Phil. 794

  • G.R. No. L-29971 August 31, 1982 - ESSO STANDARD EASTERN, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    201 Phil. 803

  • G.R. No. L-32437 August 31, 1982 - SALANDANG PANGADIL, ET AL. v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF COTABATO, BRANCH I, ET AL.

    201 Phil. 813

  • G.R. No. L-36759 August 31, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NECESIO IMBO

    201 Phil. 821

  • G.R. No. L-37935 August 31, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CLEMENTE GANADO

    201 Phil. 828

  • G.R. No. L-38687 August 31, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FILOMENO HISUGAN

    201 Phil. 836

  • G.R. No. L-39777 August 31, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIX ATIENZA

    201 Phil. 844

  • G.R. No. L-44707 August 31, 1982 - HICKOK MANUFACTURING CO., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    201 Phil. 853

  • G.R. No. L-59887 August 31, 1982 - CHINA BANKING CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    201 Phil. 857

  • G.R. No. L-60687 August 31, 1982 - PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY v. MINERVA C. GENOVEA

    201 Phil. 862

  • G.R. No. L-60800 August 31, 1982 - JAIME PELEJO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    201 Phil. 873

  • G.R. No. L-60987 August 31, 1982 - SAMUEL BAUTISTA v. NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

    201 Phil. 879