G.R. No. 125303 & 126937; June 16, 2000
DANILO LEONARDO and AURELIO FUERTE, petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and REYNALDO’S MARKETING CORPORATION, ET. AL., respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners Aurelio Fuerte and Danilo Leonardo were employees of Reynaldo’s Marketing Corporation. Fuerte, a supervisor, was informed on January 3, 1992, that he was being transferred to another plant and his supervisor’s allowance withdrawn due to his failure to meet sales quotas. He protested and filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. Leonardo, an auto-aircon mechanic, alleged that on April 22, 1991, the company’s personnel manager informed him his services were no longer needed, prompting him to also file an illegal dismissal complaint.
The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of petitioners, ordering their reinstatement with full backwages and allowances. On appeal, the NLRC modified the decision. It ordered Fuerte’s reinstatement but without backwages, finding his demotion and transfer were not dismissals but management prerogatives. It dismissed Leonardo’s complaint entirely, accepting the company’s claim that he was not terminated but had abandoned his work after being investigated for performing unauthorized “sideline” services on company time.
ISSUE
Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in reversing the Labor Arbiter’s finding of illegal dismissal.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, finding no grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC. The Court emphasized that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 reviews only jurisdictional errors, not factual findings. Grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment, which was not present.
For Fuerte, the NLRC correctly characterized the company’s action as a valid exercise of management prerogative. His demotion and the withdrawal of his allowance due to consistent failure to meet sales quotas were not equivalent to dismissal but a business decision to improve performance, provided it was done in good faith and without discrimination. The Court found the policy reasonable and Fuerte’s reassignment did not constitute constructive dismissal.
For Leonardo, the NLRC’s finding of abandonment was supported by evidence. The company did not dismiss him but confronted him about a serious infraction (doing private work using company resources). His failure to report for work thereafter and his filing of a complaint only ten months later supported the conclusion that he abandoned his job. The burden to prove illegal dismissal rests on the employee, and Leonardo failed to substantiate his claim of termination. The NLRC’s factual conclusions, being supported by the records, were binding on the Court.
