GR L 49875; (November, 1979) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-49875 November 21, 1979
SANDOVAL SHIPYARDS, INC., petitioner, vs. HON. JACOBO C. CLAVE, As Presidential Executive Assistant, HON. MINISTER OF LABOR, AND SERGIO SINDAY, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Sandoval Shipyards, Inc. employed private respondent Sergio Sinday as a carpenter. On May 4, 1976, Sinday applied for an indefinite leave of absence starting May 6. The petitioner’s manager, citing operational needs and the lack of a justifiable reason, offered to approve only a fifteen-day leave. Sinday allegedly refused this offer arrogantly, leading to the disapproval of his application. He continued working until May 26, 1976, when he absented himself and never returned. Consequently, the petitioner filed a Clearance Application/Report of Dismissal with the Department of Labor on August 20, 1976, listing Sinday and 38 others as having quit their jobs. Sinday later filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and reinstatement.
The Regional Director ordered Sinday’s reinstatement with back wages. This order was affirmed by the Acting Secretary of Labor and subsequently by Presidential Executive Assistant Jacobo C. Clave. The petitioner then filed this special civil action for certiorari, arguing that the public respondents committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering reinstatement and that the one-sentence affirmatory order from the Acting Secretary violated its right to due process.
ISSUE
Whether the public respondents committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering the reinstatement of Sergio Sinday despite evidence of abandonment.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, setting aside the orders for reinstatement. The legal logic centered on the principle of abandonment as a valid ground for termination. The Court found that Sinday had indeed abandoned his work. His application for indefinite leave was rightly disapproved for lack of justification and business necessity. Critically, the petitioner’s material allegations in its pleadings—that Sinday applied for indefinite leave, was offered a shorter period, refused, and then eventually failed to report for work—were not specifically denied by Sinday. Under the Rules of Court, such material averments not specifically denied are deemed admitted.
The filing of the clearance application reporting that Sinday had “quit” further substantiated the claim of abandonment. The Court reasoned that concern for labor rights cannot extend to protecting an employee who willfully abandons his post to seek better employment, only to demand reinstatement upon failing to find it. The procedural claim regarding the Acting Secretary’s terse order was rendered moot by the substantive finding of abandonment. There was no denial of due process, as the petitioner was afforded full opportunity to present evidence before the Regional Director. The orders of the labor officials, being contrary to the established facts and law on abandonment, constituted grave abuse of discretion.