G.R. No. 157603; June 23, 2005
NEECO II, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (NLRC) and EDUARDO CAIRLAN, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Nueva Ecija Electric Cooperative (NEECO) II employed private respondent Eduardo M. Cairlan as a driver in 1978. On January 15, 1996, NEECO’s General Manager, Danilo dela Cruz, terminated Cairlan’s services on the ground of abandonment. NEECO asserted that since the new General Manager assumed office in March 1995, Cairlan had not reported for work. It claimed to have issued a memorandum on November 22, 1995, directing Cairlan to explain his absence, and upon his failure to comply, an investigation allegedly revealed he was working for the Provincial Government of Nueva Ecija under an assumed name. Cairlan, however, contended his dismissal was illegal, prompting him to file a complaint for reinstatement and backwages.
The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Cairlan, declaring the dismissal illegal. The Arbiter found NEECO’s evidence insufficient, noting the alleged memorandum was not in the records and the claim of Cairlan working under an assumed name was unsubstantiated. The Arbiter also held the termination letter, which retroactively effected dismissal from January 1, 1996, denied due process. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and the Court of Appeals affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s decision.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the findings of the NLRC and the Labor Arbiter that Eduardo Cairlan was illegally dismissed.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision with modification on the computation of backwages. The Court upheld the consistent findings of the lower tribunals that NEECO failed to prove by substantial evidence that Cairlan abandoned his work. Abandonment requires a clear, deliberate, and unjustified refusal to resume employment, coupled with an intent to sever the employer-employee relationship. Mere absence is not sufficient. NEECO’s allegations were not corroborated by independent evidence; the critical memorandum was not presented, and the claim of Cairlan working elsewhere under an alias remained unproven.
Furthermore, the Court found the dismissal procedurally infirm. The termination was effected retroactively, depriving Cairlan of the opportunity to be heard prior to the dismissal’s effectivity, which violates the twin-notice requirement and the employee’s right to due process. Since the dismissal was without just or authorized cause and due process was not observed, Cairlan is entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and payment of full backwages, inclusive of allowances and other benefits, from the time compensation was withheld until actual reinstatement. The factual findings of the Labor Arbiter, affirmed by the NLRC and the Court of Appeals, are accorded finality when supported by substantial evidence, as in this case.