G.R. No. 156104; June 29, 2004
R.P. DINGLASAN CONSTRUCTION, INC., petitioner, vs. MARIANO ATIENZA and SANTIAGO ASI, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner R.P. Dinglasan Construction, Inc., a janitorial service contractor, informed respondents Mariano Atienza and Santiago Asi, long-time janitors assigned to Pilipinas Shell, that their assignment was ending due to a lost contract bid. Petitioner offered redeployment to other companies as helpers at minimum wage, which respondents refused, viewing it as a demotion involving loss of seniority and irregular hours. In December 1994, respondents filed a complaint for non-payment of salary. During conciliation in February 1995, petitioner offered reinstatement to Shell contingent on submitting new ID badge requirements. Respondents, with barangay officials, confirmed willingness to return and later submitted the required documents, including medical and barangay clearances.
Despite respondents’ compliance, petitioner declared them AWOL in June 1995 for allegedly failing to signify intent to return and submit requirements. Respondents insisted on their compliance and attempted to meet with petitioner, which refused. Petitioner later claimed respondents abandoned work by refusing reinstatement unless backwages were paid first, and terminated them in September 1995 for gross neglect and abandonment. Respondents amended their complaint to illegal dismissal.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari for failure to file a motion for reconsideration with the NLRC and in affirming the finding of illegal dismissal.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals. On procedure, while a motion for reconsideration is generally indispensable to a certiorari petition, exceptions exist, such as when the issue is purely legal. However, petitioner’s substantive arguments were unmeritorious, rendering the procedural lapse inconsequential. On the merits, the Court upheld the finding of constructive dismissal. The offer of redeployment at a reduced minimum wage and loss of seniority constituted a demotion, making continued employment unreasonable. Respondents’ refusal was justified. The subsequent offer of reinstatement did not cure the initial illegal dismissal effective July 15, 1994. Petitioner’s claim of abandonment failed, as respondents demonstrated a clear desire to work by complying with reinstatement requirements and seeking dialogue, negating any intent to sever employment. The factual findings of the labor tribunals, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are conclusive. The monetary award, never assailed below, is final. The petition was dismissed.