G.R. No. 73521 January 5, 1994
C. ALCANTARA & SONS, INC., petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and RODOLFO DURAN, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner C. Alcantara & Sons, Inc. hired private respondent Rodolfo Duran as a crawler operator on August 3, 1974. On July 1, 1983, while operating Crawler No. CT-49, the unit tilted and got stuck. On July 6, 1983, after the crawler was pulled out, Duran resumed operations but the engine failed after 1.5 hours, resulting in repair costs of P19,050.96. On July 13, 1983, Duran was placed under preventive suspension effective July 14, 1983, pending final investigation. On July 25, 1983, Duran filed a Complaint for Illegal Dismissal. The Labor Arbiter decided the case on March 22, 1984, based solely on Duran’s position paper due to petitioner’s failure to file its own, declaring the dismissal illegal and ordering reinstatement with full back wages. Petitioner appealed on April 18, 1984, arguing Duran was merely suspended, not dismissed, and that its counsel’s failure to file a position paper was due to excusable negligence. The NLRC dismissed the appeal on August 1, 1985. Petitioner then commenced the instant proceedings.

ISSUE

Whether the National Labor Relations Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the Labor Arbiter’s decision that declared the dismissal of Rodolfo Duran illegal.

RULING

The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the NLRC Resolution with MODIFICATION. The Court ruled that Duran was constructively and illegally dismissed. The preventive suspension was indefinite (“pending final investigation”) and more apparent than real, giving Duran the impression termination was imminent, which prompted him to file the complaint. The claim of abandonment was negated by Duran’s prompt filing of the complaint. An alleged investigation report dated August 30, 1983, which blamed Duran for the engine failure, was introduced as evidence almost a year after the complaint was filed and was conducted ex-parte; thus, it was deemed an afterthought and rejected. Even assuming Duran was at fault, dismissal was too harsh a penalty for a first infraction after almost nine years of service. An incident allegedly involving Duran on March 11, 1984, was not raised below and could not be ventilated for the first time on appeal. As Duran was illegally dismissed on July 14, 1983 (before the effectivity of R.A. No. 6715 ), he was entitled to back wages for three years without qualification and deduction. If reinstatement was no longer feasible due to the closure of petitioner’s logging operations, Duran must be paid, in addition to the three-year back wages, separation pay equivalent to one month salary for every year of service.