G.R. No. 123825. August 31, 1999.
MARK ROCHE INTERNATIONAL AND/OR EDUARDO DAYOT and SUSAN DAYOT, petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, MARK ROCHE WORKERS UNION and WILMA PATACAY, EILEEN RUFON, LILIA BRIONES, BEATRIZ MANAGAYTAY, DELIA ARELLANO, ANITA MARCELO, RIO MARIANO, MARISSA SADILI, ESTRELLA MALLARI, DELIA LAROYA, and DIVINA VILLARBA, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Eduardo Dayot and Susan Dayot were the President and Vice President, respectively, of Mark Roche International (MRI), a garments corporation. Private respondents were employed as sewers at MRI with three to nine years of service. They filed complaints for underpayment of wages and non-payment of overtime pay, alleging they worked 11-12 hours daily and were paid on a piece-rate basis. They also discovered MRI did not remit their SSS contributions. On October 11, 1992, they organized the Mark Roche Workers Union (MRWU) and filed a Petition for Certification Election on October 14, 1992. Petitioners received the notice of hearing on October 27, 1992, ordered the employees to withdraw the petition, and threatened dismissal if they persisted. Upon refusal, private respondents were discharged from work on October 29, 1992. They amended their complaints to include illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice. Petitioners countered that private respondents voluntarily abandoned their jobs, citing frequent absences and company memos, and claimed only Divina Villarba resigned voluntarily. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of private respondents, declaring illegal constructive dismissal and ordering reinstatement with back wages, proportionate 13th month pay, service incentive leave pay, and wage differentials. The NLRC affirmed but deleted the service incentive leave pay award. Petitioners filed this special civil action, contending the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion.

ISSUE

1. Whether private respondents were illegally dismissed or voluntarily abandoned their jobs.
2. Whether the NLRC acted with grave abuse of discretion in ordering reinstatement with back wages and other monetary awards.

RULING

The Supreme Court DISMISSED the petition. The Court held that private respondents were illegally dismissed, not merely constructively dismissed. Abandonment requires a deliberate and unjustified refusal to resume employment, with the burden of proof on the employer to show unequivocal intent. Petitioners failed to prove this; the company memos referred to absences long before dismissal and were unreliable. The immediate filing of a complaint for constructive dismissal negated any intent to abandon. The dismissal was due to the employees’ union activities, which is not a valid ground for termination. The Court modified the NLRC decision, clarifying the dismissal was illegal, not constructive, as there was no demotion or diminution in pay but a straightforward termination after the union petition. The award of reinstatement with back wages, salary differentials, and proportionate 13th month pay was affirmed as a direct provision of law under Article 279 of the Labor Code. The deletion of the service incentive leave pay was sustained.