G.R. No. 168317; November 21, 2011
DUP SOUND PHILS. and/or MANUEL TAN, Petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and CIRILO A. PIAL, Respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Cirilo A. Pial filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against petitioners DUP Sound Phils. and its owner/manager Manuel Tan. Pial alleged he was employed as a “mastering tape” operator from October 11, 1991. On August 21, 2001, he was absent due to illness. The following day, when he called the office as required by company policy before reporting back, the office secretary informed him, per Tan’s instruction, not to report for work until further advised. After three weeks without notice, he called again and was told to look for another job as he was no longer allowed to work. Petitioners denied dismissal, claiming Pial failed to report for work starting August 21, 2001, following an altercation with his supervisor the previous day, and that he unilaterally decided not to work anymore. They asserted that Tan even offered Pial his old post during an NLRC hearing, but Pial refused.
The Labor Arbiter (LA) ruled in favor of Pial, declaring illegal dismissal and ordering reinstatement with backwages, allowances, service incentive leave pay, and attorney’s fees. The NLRC modified the LA decision, deleting the award of backwages and attorney’s fees, ruling there was no illegal dismissal but also no abandonment by Pial. The Court of Appeals (CA) set aside the NLRC decision and reinstated the LA’s ruling. Petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding that petitioners illegally dismissed private respondent Cirilo A. Pial.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the Decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that Pial was illegally dismissed.
1. Burden of Proof and Abandonment: The burden of proving that the dismissal was for a just cause and with due process lies with the employer. Petitioners failed to discharge this burden. Their claim that Pial abandoned his job was not credible. The affidavits from their office secretary were deemed self-serving and insufficient. The Court found it incongruous for an employee to simply abandon his job without reason, especially given the difficulty of finding livelihood. Furthermore, if Pial had abandoned his work, petitioners should have sent him written notices and afforded him due process, which they failed to do.
2. Due Process Violation: Procedurally, a dismissal based on a just cause requires the employer to give the employee two written notices and a hearing or opportunity to be heard. Petitioners did not comply with these requirements. Their belated offer of re-employment during the NLRC hearings, two months after the complaint was filed, was deemed suspect and did not cure the defect of an earlier dismissal without cause and due process.
3. Jurisdiction and Factual Review: While the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction under Rule 45 is generally limited to errors of law, it may reexamine factual findings when the findings of the NLRC contradict those of the Labor Arbiter. In this case, the NLRC’s finding of no illegal dismissal contradicted the LA’s and the CA’s findings of illegal dismissal, warranting a review. Upon reexamination, the Court found no reason to depart from the concurrent findings of the LA and the CA that Pial was illegally dismissed.
The dispositive portion of the CA Decision, which reinstated the LA’s ruling ordering Pial’s reinstatement with full backwages and other benefits, was upheld.