GR 126688; (March, 1998) (Digest)
G.R. No. 126688 March 5, 1998
DEL MONTE PHILIPPINES, INC., petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and PROCESA ALSOLA, respondents.
FACTS
Private respondent Procesa Alsola was a packer employed by petitioner Del Monte Philippines, Inc. since December 21, 1972. The company had an Absence Without Permission (AWOP) policy requiring prior leave approval, with graduated penalties from reprimand to dismissal for repeated violations. Petitioner averred that Alsola incurred 57 days of AWOP from 1993-1994 and was sent 17 show-cause letters. Alsola did not appear for explanations but submitted medical certificates from her personal doctor, not company-accredited, stating her absences were due to worsening arthritis. After a notice of hearing on February 3, 1994, which she did not attend, petitioner terminated her services on March 10, 1994, for AWOP. The labor arbiter dismissed Alsola’s complaint for illegal dismissal, finding valid dismissal for gross neglect. The NLRC reversed, holding the dismissal illegal as her absences were justified by illness, and awarded six months backwages and separation pay in lieu of reinstatement due to her physical condition.
ISSUE
Whether the National Labor Relations Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling that petitioner illegally dismissed private respondent.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the NLRC decision, finding no grave abuse of discretion. The NLRC’s factual finding of illegal dismissal was supported by substantial evidence. Petitioner failed to prove the exact days of AWOP, as only two of the alleged 17 show-cause letters were proven sent and received by Alsola (for periods June 10-30, 1993, and November 5, 1993, to January 6, 1994), and these absences were supported by medical certificates. Petitioner’s dismissal was arbitrary: Alsola had an unblemished 22-year record with no prior sanctions for previous AWOPs, contrary to the company’s graduated penalty policy, and petitioner had previously accepted similar medical certificates without requiring confirmation by company physicians. The claim of abandonment was unsubstantiated, as Alsola consistently returned to work after absences and filed an illegal dismissal case, negating any intent to abandon. The dismissal appeared coincident with a retrenchment program. Since reinstatement was not feasible due to her arthritis, the award of separation pay and backwages was proper.