G.R. No. 119243. April 17, 1997.
Brew Master International Inc., Petitioner, vs. National Federation of Labor Unions (NAFLU), Antonio D. Estrada and the Honorable National Labor Relations Commission (Third Division), Respondents.

FACTS

Antonio D. Estrada was employed by Brew Master International Inc. as a route helper. From April 19 to May 19, 1993, he was absent without official leave (AWOL) to bring his children to Samar after his wife left, leaving him with no money to send prior notice. The company required him to explain his absence, found his reason unsatisfactory, and terminated him on June 17, 1993, for abandonment based on a company rule that six consecutive unauthorized absences constitute abandonment. Estrada and his union, NAFLU, filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.
The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint, ruling that Estrada’s prolonged, unexplained absence constituted abandonment, affirming the employer’s managerial prerogative to impose discipline. On appeal, the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter. It found that while the absence was unauthorized, it did not amount to gross neglect or abandonment warranting dismissal, especially for a first offender facing a family emergency. The NLRC ordered Estrada’s reinstatement without back wages but with full seniority rights and benefits. Brew Master International filed this certiorari petition.

ISSUE

Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling that Estrada’s dismissal was illegal and ordering his reinstatement.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the NLRC decision. The Court clarified that abandonment requires a clear, deliberate, and unjustified refusal to resume employment, coupled with an overt act showing a lack of intention to return. Mere absence is not sufficient; there must be a concurrence of intention to abandon and external acts demonstrating this intent. Estrada’s act of immediately filing an illegal dismissal complaint negated any intention to abandon his work.
The Court emphasized that while employers have the right to discipline employees, the penalty must be commensurate with the offense. Dismissal is the ultimate penalty and should be imposed only for the most serious causes. Considering Estrada’s length of service, his status as a first offender, and the compelling family reason for his absence—caring for his children after his wife’s abandonment—the penalty of dismissal was too severe. The law’s compassion for the workingman and his family necessitates a penalty less punitive than termination where appropriate. The NLRC correctly balanced the employer’s rights with the employee’s circumstances, and its decision was supported by substantial evidence and not tainted with grave abuse of discretion.