G.R. No. 108369 January 7, 1998
CINDY AND LYNSY GARMENT and its General Manager, KIL HUAN SY, Manager, VIRGINIA PULA SY, petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, LABOR ARBITER NIEVES V. DE CASTRO, ERNA N. BATALLA, CRISTINA P. KING and SUSAN N. CARACAS, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Cindy and Lynsy Garment is a company engaged in the manufacture and sale of brassieres, with Virginia Pula Sy as owner/operator and Kil Huan Sy assisting in management. Private respondents Erna N. Batalla, Cristina P. King, and Susan N. Caracas were employed as promo girls assigned to various outlets and were members of the National Organization of Workingmen (NOWM). On March 23, 1991, they were called to Virginia Sy’s office and asked why they were putting up a union; they used the occasion to demand wage increases and payment of legal benefits. On March 26, 1991, they were offered separation pay and notified they were going to be laid off, with a deadline of March 31, 1991 to accept. The next day, March 27, 1991, private respondents filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, underpayment of wages, nonpayment of benefits, and noncoverage under Social Security. They filed an amended complaint on April 15, 1991, deleting the underpayment claim and adding an unfair labor practice allegation, but their attached joint affidavit still set forth the salary differential claim. Petitioners’ counsel failed to file a position paper despite extensions. Labor Arbiter Nieves de Castro rendered a decision on October 29, 1991, ordering reinstatement and payment of backwages, 13th month pay, service incentive leave pay, and salary differentials. The NLRC affirmed this decision on April 23, 1992, and denied reconsideration on October 29, 1992.

ISSUE

1. Whether private respondents were illegally dismissed or had abandoned their jobs.
2. Whether private respondents had a cause of action when they filed their complaint on March 27, 1991.
3. Whether petitioners were denied due process.
4. Whether the Labor Arbiter had jurisdiction to award salary differentials despite the amended complaint.

RULING

1. Private respondents were illegally dismissed and did not abandon their jobs. Abandonment requires an unjustifiable failure to report for work and a clear intent to sever the employment. Private respondents did not report after March 26 because they were told they were being dismissed and were given until March 31 to respond. Their immediate filing of a complaint on March 27 proves they had no intention to abandon their jobs. Petitioners’ insistence that they were dismissed effective March 31 confirms the dismissal.
2. Private respondents had a cause of action. The complaint sufficiently averred dismissal on March 26, 1991, without cause. Lack of cause of action must appear on the face of the complaint, which it did not.
3. Petitioners were not denied due process. They were given a reasonable opportunity to present their side, including extensions to file their position paper. Their counsel’s failure to file was not due to serious illness, as she continued to represent them in hearings and appeals long after the deadline. Due process only requires a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
4. The Labor Arbiter had jurisdiction to award salary differentials. Although the amended complaint deleted the underpayment claim, the attached joint affidavit clearly set forth the claim for salary differentials. Under the Rules of Court, issues tried by implied consent of the parties are treated as if raised in the pleadings. The presentation of this evidence was not objected to by petitioners.
The petition was DISMISSED for lack of merit.