GR 124100; (April, 1998) (Digest)
G.R. No. 124100 April 1, 1998
PHILTRANCO SERVICE ENTERPRISES, INC., petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and MR. ROBERTO NIEVA, respondents.
FACTS
Roberto Nieva was employed as a driver by petitioner Philtranco Service Enterprises, Inc. on April 13, 1977, assigned to the Legaspi City-Pasay City route. On May 15, 1989, Nieva sideswiped a jeep owned by a PC colonel, leading to his arrest and the filing of a criminal complaint. Philtranco secured a bail bond for his release. Nieva was suspended for thirty days effective June 8, 1989. After serving his suspension, he resumed work but was re-arrested because his bail bond was fake. On October 15, 1989, Philtranco’s administrative officer, Epifanio Llado, advised Nieva to refrain from driving until a settlement was reached with the jeep owner. From then on, Nieva would report for work but was told to wait. The case was settled on July 20, 1991, with Philtranco paying for the damages. When Nieva reported for work three days later, he was asked to file a new application as he was no longer considered an employee, allegedly for being absent without leave from October 19 to November 20, 1989. Nieva filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The labor arbiter found Nieva’s absences were with permission, as he was instructed not to drive until his case was settled, and dismissed the allegation of abandonment. The arbiter awarded back wages and separation pay, a decision affirmed by the NLRC. Philtranco filed a petition for certiorari.
ISSUE
1. Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying Philtranco’s motion to dismiss the complaint based on improper venue.
2. Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling that Philtranco should pay back wages and separation pay.
3. Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in confirming the labor arbiter’s finding that there was no abandonment of work by Nieva.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion committed by the NLRC.
1. On the issue of venue, the Court held that provisions on venue are permissive and intended for the convenience of the worker, who may waive such benefit. Citing Section 1(a), Rule IV of the New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC and the case of Sulpicio Lines, Inc. vs. NLRC, the Court ruled that since Nieva was assigned to the Legaspi City-Pasay City route, Manila could be considered part of his workplace. Thus, filing the complaint with the National Capital Region Arbitration Branch was proper.
2. and 3. On the issues of abandonment and the award of back wages and separation pay, the Court held that these relate to findings of fact by the NLRC and the labor arbiter, which are generally accorded respect and finality when supported by evidence. The labor arbiter found that Nieva was instructed not to drive until his case was settled, a claim never refuted by Philtranco. The immediate filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal is inconsistent with abandonment. The NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in affirming the labor arbiter’s decision.