GR 148241; (September, 2002) (Digest)

G.R. No. 148241, September 27, 2002
Hantex Trading Co., Inc., and/or Mariano Chua, Petitioners, vs. Court of Appeals, Special Former Tenth Division, and Bernardo Singson, Respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Bernardo Singson was employed by petitioner Hantex Trading Co., Inc. on November 8, 1994, as a sales representative. On August 5, 1996, a conference was held between Singson and Hantex president Mariano Chua. Singson alleged that during this conference, Chua asked for his resignation and required him to submit a resignation letter, otherwise his separation pay, 13th month pay, and other benefits would not be paid. When Singson refused, he was ejected from the premises and guards were instructed to refuse him admittance. Petitioners denied dismissing Singson, claiming the conference was merely to motivate him to improve his poor sales performance, and that Singson resented this and never reported back to work. On August 8, 1996, Singson filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter found Singson illegally dismissed, ordering reinstatement, backwages, and 13th month pay. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the illegal dismissal but modified the backwages computation. The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC decision in toto.

ISSUE

Whether private respondent Bernardo Singson deliberately abandoned his employment or was illegally dismissed by petitioner Hantex Trading Co., Inc.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the petition raised a factual issue, and findings of fact by the Court of Appeals, especially when in agreement with the NLRC and Labor Arbiter, are final and binding if supported by substantial evidence. The Court found no reason to disturb the unanimous findings. It ruled that Singson did not abandon his job; his immediate filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal three days after the conference negated any intention to abandon. Abandonment requires a clear intention to sever the employment relationship, which petitioners failed to prove. The Court found Singson to have been illegally dismissed. However, due to the strained relations between the parties, reinstatement was deemed impractical. In lieu of reinstatement, petitioners were ordered to pay Singson separation pay equivalent to one month’s pay for every year of service, backwages computed from August 5, 1996, until the finality of the decision, plus accrued 13th month pay.