G.R. No. 130935 May 11, 2000
ALLAN VILLAR, DANILO INDITA, ARTURO MANIMTIM, GERSON DATALIO, GERRY VILLARALBO, ALFONSO PIPINO, NOEL ANGAY and EXEQUIEL MANIMTIM, petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and HI-TECH MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners were employees of Hi-Tech Manufacturing Corporation. In March 1994, they filed a petition for a certification election, which was held on July 31, 1994, resulting in a “No Union” vote. The following day, petitioners failed to report for work. They filed complaints for illegal dismissal and labor standards violations, alleging they were barred from entering the company premises as retaliation for their union activities. They also claimed underpayment and non-payment of overtime and other statutory benefits. Hi-Tech denied dismissal, contending petitioners voluntarily absented themselves after losing the election. The company presented affidavits of desistance from other employees and handwritten notes from petitioners Arturo and Exequiel Manimtim apologizing for their “mistake” of stopping work simultaneously and requesting financial assistance.
The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of petitioners, ordering reinstatement with full back wages and payment of monetary benefits. On appeal, the NLRC reversed the decision, finding no illegal dismissal and ordering petitioners to report back to work or receive separation pay. The NLRC gave credence to the affidavits of desistance and the handwritten notes.

ISSUE

Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in reversing the Labor Arbiter’s finding of illegal dismissal.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, reinstating the Labor Arbiter’s decision. The Court held that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion by disregarding established doctrine and misappreciating evidence. The affidavits of desistance from other employees who were not parties to the case were inadmissible hearsay and could not substantiate Hi-Tech’s claim of voluntary abandonment. The handwritten notes of apology from two petitioners, solicited by the employer, were insufficient to prove abandonment, which requires a clear, deliberate, and unjustified refusal to resume employment. The notes did not constitute quitclaims; they were mere pleas for financial assistance and forgiveness. The employer failed to discharge its burden of proving that the petitioners’ failure to work was indeed voluntary. The unexplained mass absence immediately following a protected union activity (the certification election) created a presumption of unlawful dismissal, which Hi-Tech failed to rebut with clear and convincing evidence. The award of monetary benefits was likewise reinstated, subject to deduction for any amounts actually received by the two petitioners under their notes.