G.R. No. 141441; June 19, 2001
JOSE SUAN, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, IRMA FISHING AND TRADING INC., ROBERTO DEL ROSARIO and EMILIANO ORIPAYPAY, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Jose Suan was employed as a master fisherman on a catcher vessel of respondent Irma Fishing and Trading, Inc. In November 1996, he suffered a stroke on board and disembarked. He was granted sick leave from December 2, 1996, to May 30, 1997. On May 30, 1997, he reported for work but was allegedly refused reinstatement and told to secure a medical certificate. He presented a certificate from Dr. Rolando S. Punzalan dated June 7, 1997, stating his hypertension had been downgraded to mild and, although he needed medication, he could resume working. Respondents allegedly refused to accept him back, offering separation pay instead (P40,000, later P35,000). Petitioner filed an illegal dismissal complaint on July 14, 1997. Respondents denied dismissal, claiming petitioner had applied for vacation leave extensions until July 10, 1997. They asserted that when petitioner reported on July 10, respondent Oripaypay noticed his left arm and limb seemed paralyzed. Petitioner allegedly requested a transfer from “laot” (open sea) to “tabi” (shore) work, which Oripaypay said he would refer to management, suggesting separation pay in the interim. Respondents advised petitioner to extend his leave until August 10, 1997, awaiting a decision on his transfer request. Instead, petitioner filed the complaint. During the case’s pendency, on August 16, 1997, Oripaypay sent petitioner a letter declaring him AWOL for not reporting after his extended leave expired on August 10 and requiring him to explain his absence.

ISSUE

Whether the petitioner was illegally dismissed from his employment.

RULING

No, the petitioner was not illegally dismissed. The Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the Court of Appeals, NLRC, and Labor Arbiter, finding no grave abuse of discretion. The Court held that the petition essentially raised a factual issue, and its jurisdiction in a petition for review is confined to questions of law. It found no reason to disturb the lower tribunals’ findings. The Labor Arbiter’s conclusion, substantially adopted by the Court of Appeals, noted: (1) no notice of termination was issued to petitioner; (2) the medical certificate indicated petitioner still had Hypertension I (mild) and Ischemic Heart Disease, requiring medication, and did not address the heart ailment’s permanence; (3) a master fisherman’s job is strenuous, and petitioner, having suffered a stroke only six months prior, had not fully recovered his physical strength; (4) allowing him to return to his old job posed serious health risks; and (5) the August 16, 1997, letter from Oripaypay requiring petitioner to report and explain his absence indicated respondents were waiting for his return, contrary to a dismissal scenario. Therefore, the Court found petitioner was not dismissed and was not entitled to back wages. The option given by the Labor Arbiter for either reinstatement without back wages or payment of separation pay (P30,030.00) stood.