G.R. No. 114161 November 23, 1995
VIRGILIO M. CAÑETE, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (FOURTH DIVISION) and VICENTE TING/V.T. MARKETING, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Virgilio Cañete was employed as a helper-utility man by private respondent Vicente Ting/V.T. Marketing. On July 22, 1992, Cañete arrived at work and remarked to co-employees about starting work early while their time cards reflected a later start time, implying underpayment. This remark reached management, and that evening, the manager, Joaquin Chua, summoned Cañete, told him not to report for work anymore, and offered separation pay. When Cañete refused the offer the next day, he was barred from working. He subsequently filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, underpayment, and other monetary claims.
Private respondent presented a contrary version, alleging that on July 22, 1992, Cañete was reprimanded for habitual absences and thereafter abandoned his job. The respondent claimed to have sent a notice of termination for abandonment, which was returned undelivered. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Cañete, finding illegal dismissal. The respondent’s appeal to the NLRC was initially dismissed for being filed one day late, but the NLRC later reconsidered, accepted the appeal, and ultimately reversed the Labor Arbiter, finding that Cañete had abandoned his work.

ISSUE

Whether the National Labor Relations Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in: (1) admitting the private respondent’s belated appeal; and (2) reversing the Labor Arbiter’s finding of illegal dismissal.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion. On the procedural issue, the Court held that the service of the Labor Arbiter’s decision on a sales representative of an adjoining office, who was merely resting in the counsel’s premises, was not a valid service upon the counsel of record. Service must be made to the counsel or a duly authorized representative. The reckoning of the appeal period from March 16 was therefore erroneous; it should have been from March 15, making the appeal filed on March 26 indisputably late. The NLRC’s acceptance of the appeal was a capricious disregard of procedural rules.
On the substantive issue, the Court ruled that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in finding abandonment. Abandonment requires a clear, deliberate, and unjustified intent to sever the employment relationship, which the employer must prove. The facts show Cañete was dismissed outright after his remark about work hours. His immediate filing of an illegal dismissal complaint negates any intent to abandon. The employer’s claim of abandonment, supported by documents submitted only on appeal, was insufficient and a denial of due process, as these were not presented during the proceedings before the Labor Arbiter. Thus, the finding of abandonment had no factual and legal basis. The Supreme Court reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s decision, except for the wage differentials award.