GR 166111; (August, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. 166111 August 25, 2005
Standard Electric Manufacturing Corporation, Petitioner, vs. Standard Electric Employees Union-NAFLU-KMU and Rogelio Javier, Respondents.
FACTS
Rogelio Javier, an employee of Standard Electric Manufacturing Corporation (SEMC), was arrested and detained on August 9, 1995, on a rape charge. He failed to report for work starting July 31, 1995. On January 13, 1996, SEMC received a letter from Javier, through counsel, informing them of his detention and requesting deferment of any dismissal action, citing the Magtoto v. NLRC ruling. SEMC denied the request and terminated Javier’s employment for being absent without leave (AWOL) for more than fifteen days and for committing the crime. On May 17, 1996, the Regional Trial Court granted Javier’s demurrer to evidence, ordered his release, and he subsequently reported for work. SEMC refused reinstatement. The Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) dismissed Javier’s illegal dismissal complaint but awarded separation pay. The Court of Appeals reversed, ordering reinstatement with backwages.
ISSUE
Whether Javier was illegally dismissed by SEMC.
RULING
Yes, Javier was illegally dismissed. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals with modification. The legal logic is anchored on the principle that an employee’s temporary detention or incarceration, pending resolution of a criminal charge, does not constitute abandonment or justify termination for AWOL if the absence is involuntary. Javier’s failure to report was due to forcible confinement, negating any intention to abandon his job. The employer’s duty to give the employee an opportunity to explain was not fulfilled merely by a grievance meeting held after the dismissal decision had already been made. The Court cited Magtoto v. NLRC, ruling that dismissal based solely on the fact of detention for a crime later disproven is invalid. Since Javier was acquitted via demurrer to evidence, the ground for his dismissal ceased to exist. His immediate attempt to return to work upon release confirmed his desire to remain employed. Consequently, SEMC’s refusal to reinstate him constituted illegal dismissal. The grant of backwages was reckoned from the date SEMC refused his reinstatement. Reinstatement with full backwages was ordered, or separation pay if reinstatement was no longer viable.