GR 100969; (August, 1992) (Digest)
G.R. No. 100969 August 14, 1992
CARLO RANARA, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ORO UNION CONSTRUCTION SUPPLY AND/OR JIMMY TING CHANG, GENERAL MANAGER/OWNER, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Carlo Ranara was a driver for Oro Union Construction Supply. On November 10, 1989, Fe Leonar, secretary of the owner Jimmy Ting Chang, told him not to report for work the following day. Thinking it was a joke, Ranara reported on November 11, 1989, but found another person handling his assigned vehicle. When he asked Leonar why, she scolded him, stating Mr. Chang did not like his services. Three days later, Ranara filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and monetary claims. The private respondents denied illegal dismissal, claiming Ranara abandoned his work and that Leonar was not authorized to terminate him, presenting payroll records to refute monetary claims. The Labor Arbiter ruled Ranara was not illegally dismissed, noting Chang offered re-employment at a hearing on December 28, 1989, which Ranara refused. The NLRC affirmed this decision. The Solicitor General, in his comment to the Supreme Court, disagreed, arguing the offer of reinstatement did not cure an illegal dismissal and abandonment was unlikely.
ISSUE
Whether petitioner Carlo Ranara was illegally dismissed.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court ruled petitioner was illegally dismissed. The Court found the claim of abandonment a “rank falsity,” as Ranara filed a complaint just three days after his dismissal, acts which are inconsistent. The secretary’s act of dismissal was deemed authorized, as neither Chang nor his mother (officer-in-charge) reversed it or reinstated Ranara, and they accepted his replacement. The subsequent offer of reinstatement did not cure the illegal dismissal, as the liability incurred from the moment of dismissal did not abate. Ranara’s refusal to accept reinstatement was justified due to strained relations, fearing vindictive action in a small workplace of less than ten employees. The Court modified the NLRC decision, affirming the monetary awards specified by the Labor Arbiter but additionally granting Ranara separation pay and three years’ back wages in lieu of reinstatement. Procedural lapse (failure to file a motion for reconsideration) was disregarded in the interest of substantial justice.