GR 113162; (February, 1996) (Digest)
G.R. No. 113162 ; February 9, 1996
L.T. DATU AND CO., INC. AND/OR HERMILO DATU, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, LABOR ARBITER JOSE G. DE VEYRA, VICTOR MELANIO and GREGORIO F. FLORENDO, respondents.
FACTS
Private respondents Victor Melanio and Gregorio Florendo were hired as plumbers by petitioner L.T. Datu and Co., Inc. in June 1979. On July 19, 1991, a company memorandum from Ging B. Salera was issued, listing the private respondents among workers who had timed in but were “NOT WORKING.” The memorandum instructed the project in-charge to advise them to report to the office the next day “to settle their salaries” and stated, “I would NOT LIKE TO SEE them in this project anymore.” Following this memo, the respondents were barred from the worksite by security guards.
Interpreting the memorandum as a termination order, especially in the context of a prior protest over delayed salary payments, private respondents filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled in their favor, awarding separation pay in lieu of reinstatement. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the decision but modified it to include an award for backwages from the time of dismissal until the Arbiter’s decision.
ISSUE
Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the Labor Arbiter’s finding that the July 19, 1991 memorandum constituted an illegal dismissal of the private respondents.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC. The Court upheld the finding that the memorandum was a dismissal order, not a mere directive for transfer or salary settlement as claimed by the petitioner. The legal logic rests on a plain reading of the memorandum’s language and the subsequent actions of the employer. The directive to “settle their salaries” and the unequivocal statement, “I would NOT LIKE TO SEE them in this project anymore,” coupled with the actual prevention of the employees from working by security guards, constituted a constructive dismissal. The employer failed to provide any valid or authorized cause for termination and disregarded the mandatory procedural due process requirements under the Labor Code.
The Court further clarified a terminological error in the NLRC resolution but found it inconsequential to the outcome. The NLRC had referred to “unpaid salaries” as “backwages.” The Court explained that unpaid salaries are compensation for services actually rendered prior to dismissal, while backwages are earnings lost from the time of illegal dismissal until reinstatement. This clarification did not invalidate the award, as the computation for the monetary claims due to the illegal dismissal was substantively correct. The petition failed to demonstrate that the NLRC’s factual findings and legal conclusions were arrived at arbitrarily or capriciously.