ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 142006.August 20, 2001]

BUGTONG vs. PASVIL LINER, INC., et al.

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated AUG 20 2001.

G.R. No. 142006 (Donato G. Bugtong vs. Pasvil Liner, Inc., et al.)

����������� This case originated from an action for illegal dismissal filed by petitioner Donato G. Bugtong against respondent Pasvil Liner, Inc. The Labor Arbiter, in its decision, dated 25 May 1995, found that the dismissal was justified. Nevertheless, the Labor Arbiter also found that herein petitioner was not extended due process and herein respondent was ordered to indemnify him in the amount of P1,000.00.

Petitioner appealed the decision but the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), in a decision promulgated on 19 December 1995, dismissed the appeal for lack of merit and affirmed the decision of the Labor Arbiter. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied by the NLRC in its 31 January 1996 resolution prompting the former to seek relief from this Court (via a petition for certiorari docketed G.R. No. 124780). However, following the ruling of this Court in St. Martin Funeral Homes vs. NLRC, ¹ 295 SCRA 494 (1998). the case was remanded to the Court of Appeals.

����������� In its decision promulgated on 12 July 1999, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the NLRC and in its resolution promulgated on 16 February 2000, the appellate court denied herein petitioner's motion for reconsideration.

Hence, the present recourse.

After petitioner filed his motion for reconsideration of the Court of Appeals' decision and before the resolution thereof, this Court reexamined the Wenphil doctrine ² Wenphil Corp. vs. NLRC, 170 SCRA 69 (1989).which declared that an employer who failed to observe due process in terminating an employment must indemnify the employee in the amount of P1,000.00. The new doctrine laid down in Serrano vs. NLRC, ³ 323 SCRA 445, promulgated on January 27, 2000.mandated as follows:

"x x x with respect to dismissals for cause under Art. 282, if it is shown that the employee was dismissed for any of the just causes mentioned in said Art. 282, then, in accordance with that article, he should not be reinstated. However, he must be paid backwages from the time his employment was terminated until it is determined that the termination of employment is for a just cause because the failure to hear him before he is dismissed renders the termination of his employment without legal effect." ⁴ Id. , at 476.

It is for this reason that petitioner wants this Court to review not only the validity of his dismissal from employment but also, assuming arguendo that there was valid cause for the dismissal the award of indemnity in the amount of P1,000.00 instead of the proper amount following the Serrano ruling.

After a careful review of the records of this case, the Court finds no reason to deviate from the findings of the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC and the Court of Appeals that petitioner's termination from employment was sanctioned under Article 282 of the Labor Code. Petitioner had been negligent in the performance of his duties by his habitual absence from work without prior permission from his employer. The Court subscribed to the observation of the appellate court that if, indeed, petitioner reported for work during the times he was reported absent, he could have stated the same in his explanation instead of merely disclaiming his receipt of any letter from respondent that he was AWOL from work, coupled with petitioner's various infractions enumerated in the, questioned decision, it could not, be said that he was illegally dismissed from employment.It is well-settled that findings of facts of administrative offices such as the NLRC, affirming those of the Labor Arbiter, are entitled to great weight ⁵ Philippine Fruit and Vegetable Industries, Inc. vs. NLRC, 310 SCRA 673 (1999).and even with finality when these findings are supported by substantial evidence. ⁶ Philippine Veterans Bank vs. NLRC, 317 SCRA 510 (1999).The factual findings of these administrative bodies was passed upon by the Court of Appeals and absent any showing that any evidence had been disregarded and misappreciated, said findings should be conclusive before this Court.

����������� While we sustain petitioner's dismissal from employment, we also rule that respondent failed to comply with the two-notice requirement for termination of employment. The Court is not swayed by the argument of respondent in its comment to the petition that petitioner was accorded due process. We agree with the Court of Appeals that petitioner was deprived of the Opportunity to present his side when his explanation was not received by the secretary of the operations manager until he was given notice of his termination from employment.

On the applicability of the Serrano doctrine to the case before us, it should be emphasized here that the decision of the Court of Appeals was promulgated prior to the Serrano ruling. However, after petitioner moved for the reconsideration of the appellate court's decision, the Serrano decision was promulgated and, thus, it should have been applied in the resolution of the motion for reconsideration.

Nevertheless, while the Serrano doctrine declares that the payment of backwages should be computed from the time the employment was terminated until it is determined that the termination of his employment is for a just cause, the payment of backwages of petitioner should only be until 03 February 2000. In PASVIL/Pascual Liner, Inc. Workers Union-NAFLU vs. NLRC, ⁷ 311 SCRA 444 (1999).this Court declared that herein petitioner was among those who lost his employment status as a consequence of participating in an illegal strike. The decision in that case became final and executory on 03 February 2000. ⁸ Rollo, p. 127.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petition is partially GRANTED by ordering respondent to pay petitioner backwages from the time of his termination from employment until 03 February 2000. This case is REMANDED to the Labor Arbiter for the computation of backwages awarded to petitioner.

Respondent's manifestation with compliance to the show cause resolution of the Court, dated June 18, 2001, is NOTED and the explanation is ACCEPTED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE