G.R. No. 100490 August 12, 1992
PHILIPPINE RABBIT LINES, INC., petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (Second Division), LABOR ARBITER VALENTIN GUANIO, and SEVERINO ESTOQUE, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Severino Estoque worked as a bus conductor for petitioner Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. from October 31, 1984. His last trip was on August 23, 1986. On September 19, 1986, he received a memorandum from the General Manager placing him under preventive suspension and directing him to report for a formal investigation for allegedly abandoning his work since August 31, 1986. The notice cautioned that failure to report would be construed as a waiver to present his side. Estoque failed to report for the investigation. On October 15, 1986, the company sent him a memorandum terminating his employment based on company rules that employees who are on AWOL or have not been heard from for one month are summarily separated, his failure to report for investigation, and his past record of multiple rule violations for which he had been warned and suspended. Estoque was not heard from until November 24, 1988, when he filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, praying for reinstatement, back wages, and other benefits. On December 23, 1988, after filing the complaint, Estoque requested the withdrawal of his cash bond. The company processed a clearance document, which was a mimeographed form opening with a statement of resignation, to facilitate the bond refund. Estoque received P847.00 on December 29, 1988. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Estoque, finding no abandonment, and ordered his reinstatement with one year of back wages. The NLRC affirmed this decision. Philippine Rabbit filed this certiorari action.

ISSUE

Whether or not the National Labor Relations Commission acted with grave abuse of discretion in declaring that Severino Estoque was illegally dismissed.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court ruled that the NLRC acted with grave abuse of discretion. The Court found that the facts established Estoque had abandoned his job. He absented himself from work after August 23, 1986. Although he checked on his bus repair on September 3, 1986, he did not inform his superiors of his willingness to work on another vehicle or position. He received the investigation notice but failed to report. After his dismissal on October 15, 1986, he stayed away for over two years without attempting to retain his job. His application for and receipt of his cash bond refund in December 1988, facilitated through a clearance form indicating resignation, was inconsistent with a desire to remain employed and instead indicated an intention to sever the employment relation. His past record showed multiple infractions. The Labor Arbiter and NLRC misread or ignored these facts, drawing conclusions without adequate foundation. Their actions were whimsical and capricious. The Court nullified the NLRC Resolution and the Labor Arbiter’s decision and dismissed Estoque’s complaint.