G.R. No. 119868 July 28, 1997
PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. (PAL), Petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, LABOR ARBITER ERNESTO F. CARREON, and JESUS G. IBARRA, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Philippine Airlines, Inc. (PAL) hired private respondent Dr. Jesus G. Ibarra as a Flight Surgeon on September 22, 1983. Through a letter dated July 12, 1993, received by Ibarra on August 16, 1993, PAL dismissed him for alleged misuse of the reduced rate travel privilege and for incurring absences without leave (AWOL) on January 4, 1993, and February 1 and 2, 1993. The dismissal letter stated Ibarra allowed a certain Lyn Ibarra, who was not a listed dependent, to use his daughter Teresita’s travel benefit on Flight PR 841 on January 4, 1993, and that he was AWOL on the stated dates. Ibarra filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. He argued his sick leave on January 4 was authorized by a PAL form signed by his superior, Dr. Manolo Espedido, and his absences on February 1 and 2 were for official business, also authorized by Dr. Espedido. He denied the travel misuse, asserting it was his daughter Teresita who accompanied him, supported by affidavits from relatives and airport personnel. PAL contended the dismissal was for just cause after due process. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Ibarra, ordering reinstatement with back wages and attorney’s fees, finding the absences authorized and giving more weight to Ibarra’s evidence on the travel issue. The NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s decision. PAL’s motion for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

Whether the National Labor Relations Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the Labor Arbiter’s decision that the dismissal of Jesus G. Ibarra was illegal.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the NLRC decision. The Court held that certiorari under Rule 65 requires a showing of grave abuse of discretion, which PAL failed to establish. The NLRC’s findings were supported by substantial evidence. On the charge of AWOL, the Court found Ibarra’s absences were authorized by his immediate superior, Dr. Espedido, who admitted signing the authorization forms, and the fault for using a different form lay with PAL. On the charge of misuse of travel privilege, the Court upheld the NLRC’s assessment that PAL’s evidence, primarily from witness Apolinario Cruz who had a motive to testify against Ibarra, was insufficient to overcome Ibarra’s denial and supporting affidavits. The Court reiterated that factual findings of quasi-judicial agencies, when supported by substantial evidence, are accorded respect and finality. Since Ibarra did not appeal, the award of back wages without deduction for earnings elsewhere, as mandated by Article 279 of the Labor Code, stood.