G.R. No. 104321 October 25, 1994
Mercedes M. Bonotan, petitioner, vs. National Labor Relations Commission (Second Division) and Bonifacio Ongpauco, doing business under the name “BARRIO FIESTA”, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Mercedes M. Bonotan worked as a food checker at the “Barrio Fiesta” restaurant owned by private respondent Bonifacio Ongpauco. On May 21, 1990, petitioner had an argument with the Operations Manager, Mr. Virgilio Montenegro, after being asked to follow up on a customer’s order. Private respondent claimed this constituted insubordination under company rules, warranting a ten-day suspension. A suspension memorandum dated May 21, 1990, effective May 22 to June 2, 1990, was issued, but petitioner refused to acknowledge receipt. After her suspension period lapsed on June 3, 1990, petitioner did not report for work. Private respondent sent a representative to her residence to request her return, but she refused. A letter dated June 5, 1990, required her to explain her absence, warning that failure to do so would be considered abandonment. Petitioner did not respond. Around two months later, she informed private respondent of her intention to resign but demanded separation pay, which was refused. On August 15, 1990, petitioner filed a complaint for unfair labor practice and illegal dismissal, alleging she was dismissed due to her union activities. The Labor Arbiter ruled in her favor, finding illegal dismissal. The NLRC reversed this decision on appeal, holding that petitioner was not dismissed but had abandoned her job, and ordered her to return to work without backwages.

ISSUE

Whether the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in reversing the Labor Arbiter’s decision and holding that petitioner was not illegally dismissed but had abandoned her work.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the NLRC decision. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion. Petitioner’s claim of unfair labor practice and illegal dismissal due to union activities was unsupported by substantial evidence; she provided only vague and general charges. The evidence showed petitioner was suspended for insubordination after the May 21, 1990 incident. Her subsequent actions, including not reporting for work on the first day of her suspension and refusing to return after a personal request and a written notice, demonstrated knowledge of her suspension and an intention to abandon her job. The requisites for abandonment—the employee’s intention to abandon and an overt act from which such intent can be inferred—were sufficiently proved. However, considering petitioner’s 26 years of service and lack of prior violations, the penalty of dismissal was deemed too severe. Thus, the NLRC’s order for her to return to work without backwages was just and equitable. The Court also rejected petitioner’s procedural claims, finding that private respondent’s appeal to the NLRC was filed on time and supported by a supersedeas bond.