G.R. No. 110452 -54 November 24, 1994
KINGSIZE MANUFACTURING CORP. and CHARLIE CO, petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ANACORITA VALDE, CELSA DIZON, TERESITA ORIBIANA, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Kingsize Manufacturing Corp. is a garment factory. Private respondents were its employees, most hired as early as 1978 and the rest in 1987, as sewers on a piecework basis, except respondent Juancho Bognot who was an assistant cutter and later supervisor. At various times between June 1987 and January 1988, private respondents were dismissed by petitioners for alleged abandonment of work. When private respondents presented themselves, they were prevented from entering the workplace by petitioners’ agent, Charlie Co. Within days of their dismissal, private respondents secured employment at another garment factory, First General Marketing Corporation (FGMC). Two respondents were employed at FGMC on the same day they were dismissed.
Private respondents filed complaints for illegal dismissal, underpayment of minimum wage, ECOLA, overtime pay, non-payment of legal holiday pay, service incentive leave pay, 13th month pay, and attorney’s fees. The Labor Arbiter found that, except for Juancho Bognot, the complainants had quit their jobs to work for FGMC and dismissed their claim for reinstatement. For Juancho Bognot, the Labor Arbiter found illegal dismissal and ordered payment of six months’ backwages. The Labor Arbiter also granted certain monetary claims to some respondents.
Five complainants (Anacorita Valde, Judy Dreu, Lydia Llobit, Marlene Bognot, and Celsa Dizon) appealed the finding of abandonment, praying for separation pay. Petitioners appealed the order to reinstate Juancho Bognot. The NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter, finding petitioners guilty of illegally dismissing all complainants, ordering reinstatement without backwages (except for Bognot, whose award was affirmed). Upon motion for reconsideration by the five complainants, the NLRC granted them backwages equivalent to three years of their salaries. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

Whether the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in finding petitioners guilty of illegal dismissal and in ordering the reinstatement of all respondents.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the NLRC’s finding of illegal dismissal but modified the remedy. The NLRC did not gravely abuse its discretion in finding illegal dismissal. Petitioners failed to prove the “clear and deliberate intent” required to establish abandonment, as mere absence is insufficient. The fact that private respondents quickly found new employment did not alone prove abandonment, given countervailing evidence such as being barred from entering the workplace, earning more from petitioners, and having security of tenure with petitioners.
However, the NLRC exceeded its jurisdiction in ordering the reinstatement of all respondents. Only five complainants (Valde, Dreu, Llobit, M. Bognot, and Dizon) appealed the Labor Arbiter’s decision, and they had reduced their demand to separation pay. Therefore, instead of reinstatement, they should be granted separation pay at the rate of one month for every year of service. The other six respondents who did not appeal were bound by the Labor Arbiter’s final decision. The order for Juancho Bognot’s reinstatement with backwages was affirmed as he did not appeal and ask for separation pay.