G.R. No. 141637 ; June 8, 2006
ROMY’S FREIGHT SERVICE, represented by Roman G. Cruz, Petitioner, vs. JESUS C. CASTRO, DOMINADOR VELORIA and the FIRST DIVISION of the COURT OF APPEALS, Respondents.

FACTS

This case originated from a complaint for illegal dismissal filed by respondents Castro and Veloria against petitioner Romy’s Freight Service. Castro, hired in 1975 and promoted to supervisor, suffered a stroke in December 1994 and took a medical leave. While on leave, petitioner sent him letters urging his return, which later became show-cause letters, and filed criminal complaints against him. Veloria, hired in 1977 and promoted to senior mechanic, sustained facial burns from a work accident in February 1995 and also took a recuperation leave. During his absence, he received letters from petitioner demanding explanations for lost tools and loan payments, and was later charged with qualified theft. Both respondents, alleging these acts constituted constructive dismissal, jointly filed an illegal dismissal case.
The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of respondents, finding illegal dismissal and awarding monetary benefits. The NLRC reversed, finding respondents guilty of abandonment. Respondents then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), which granted the petition, reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s decision, and found constructive dismissal. Petitioner now assails the CA decision via certiorari, arguing the CA should not have entertained the petition due to respondents’ failure to file a motion for reconsideration with the NLRC, and that the factual findings of the NLRC should prevail.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in: (1) taking cognizance of the certiorari petition despite the alleged non-filing of a motion for reconsideration with the NLRC; and (2) ruling that respondents were illegally constructively dismissed and entitled to monetary awards.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the CA decision. On the procedural issue, the Court held that while a motion for reconsideration is generally a prerequisite for certiorari under Rule 65, recognized exceptions apply. The respondents’ petition before the CA fell under the exceptions, specifically where the question raised (constructive dismissal) was the very issue already raised and resolved by the NLRC, and where the employer-employee relationship is impressed with public interest. Thus, the CA correctly assumed jurisdiction.
On the substantive issue, the Court upheld the CA’s factual findings, which affirmed the Labor Arbiter. In a Rule 65 petition, the Supreme Court’s review is limited to determining whether the CA committed grave abuse of discretion, not to re-evaluating evidence. The CA correctly found that the Labor Arbiter’s conclusion of constructive dismissal was supported by substantial evidence. Petitioner’s acts of sending harassing letters and filing criminal charges against employees on legitimate leave created an intolerable work environment, leaving them no real choice but to sever employment. Abandonment requires a clear intent to sever the employment relationship, which was absent here given their justifiable absences due to illness and their filing of the complaint. The monetary awards were thus proper. The petition was dismissed.