G.R. No. 122165. February 17, 1997.
Ala Mode Garments, Inc., petitioner, vs. National Labor Relations Commission (First Division), Lucrecia V. Gaba and Elsa I. Melarpes, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Ala Mode Garments, Inc., a garments manufacturer, employed private respondents Gaba and Melarpes as line leaders. On May 5 and 6, 1993, all line leaders, including private respondents, were absent. Suspecting a concerted boycott, petitioner verbally required them to submit written explanations. On May 7, upon reporting for work, they were barred from entering company premises. They subsequently submitted letters explaining their absences: Gaba due to her child’s illness, and Melarpes due to pregnancy-related illness. Petitioner did not allow them to resume work, instructing them to await management’s decision pending an investigation, despite allowing other absent line leaders to return immediately.
Private respondents filed complaints for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled in their favor, finding the dismissal illegal due to lack of just cause and procedural due process. The NLRC affirmed the decision, rejecting petitioner’s claim that no dismissal occurred as the employees were merely told to await a decision. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied for being filed out of time.

ISSUE

Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the finding that private respondents were illegally dismissed.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the NLRC with modification on the computation of backwages. The legal logic is clear: dismissal from employment requires both a just or authorized cause under Article 282, 283, or 284 of the Labor Code and observance of procedural due process. The employer bears the burden of proving the validity of the dismissal. Here, petitioner failed to discharge this burden.
First, on the substantive aspect, petitioner alleged that the absences constituted sabotage but presented no evidence to substantiate this claim. The proffered reasons for absence—family illness and personal health—were valid and not disproven. Mere suspicion or conjecture cannot justify termination. Furthermore, the penalty of dismissal was grossly disproportionate to the infraction of a two-day absence, which was a first offense during their three years of service.
Second, on the procedural aspect, petitioner violated the twin-notice rule. While explanations for absence were submitted, private respondents were not formally charged with sabotage nor given an opportunity to be heard on that specific accusation before being barred from work. The act of preventing them from entering constituted a constructive dismissal, as the employer’s unilateral act of refusing work effectively severed the employment relationship. The instruction to “await management’s decision” did not negate dismissal but confirmed the imposition of a punitive suspension without pay pending an indefinite investigation. The NLRC correctly found no grave abuse of discretion in the Labor Arbiter’s ruling. The award of full backwages without deduction for earnings elsewhere during the period of illegal dismissal was affirmed in line with Republic Act No. 6715.