GR 170525; (October, 2009) (Digest)
G.R. No. 170525; October 2, 2009
BARON REPUBLIC THEATRICAL, MAJOR CINEMA, WILSON PASCUAL and RODRIGO SALAZAR, Petitioners, vs. NORMITA P. PERALTA and EDILBERTO H. AGUILAR, Respondents.
FACTS
Respondent Normita Peralta was hired by petitioner Baron Republic Theatrical in 1983, eventually promoted to General Manager, and was terminated by owner Rodrigo Salazar on March 14, 1993, without stated cause. She filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and monetary claims. Respondent Edilberto Aguilar was hired by petitioner Major Cinema in 1983 as an electrician/air-conditioner operator and was terminated by owner Wilson Pascual in May 1994, also without explanation, leading him to file a similar complaint for illegal dismissal and wage-related claims.
The Labor Arbiter ruled Peralta’s dismissal was not illegal due to authorized closure but awarded separation pay. For Aguilar, the Arbiter found illegal dismissal, ordering reinstatement with backwages. The NLRC modified these rulings, deleting most of Peralta’s awards and reversing the finding on Aguilar, declaring he had voluntarily abandoned his job. The Court of Appeals then reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s decision with modifications, deleting service incentive leave pay for both but affirming Aguilar’s illegal dismissal and the corresponding awards.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the NLRC and reinstating the Labor Arbiter’s findings, particularly regarding the illegal dismissal of Aguilar and the monetary awards for both respondents.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA decision. On Aguilar’s dismissal, the Court upheld the finding of illegality. The burden of proof to show a valid dismissal rests on the employer. Petitioner Pascual failed to substantiate the claim of abandonment. Mere absence from work is not abandonment, which requires a clear intent to sever the employment relationship, demonstrated by overt acts. Aguilar’s immediate filing of a complaint negated such intent. Pascual’s bare allegation, unsupported by evidence like notices to return to work, was insufficient to discharge his burden.
Regarding monetary claims, the Court affirmed the awards for Peralta’s 13th month pay and separation pay, as Salazar failed to prove payment. For Aguilar, the awards for backwages, wage differentials, and separation pay in lieu of reinstatement were sustained due to Pascual’s failure to prove lawful dismissal and proper wage payments. The award of attorney’s fees was also proper under Article 111 of the Labor Code, as the employees were compelled to litigate to recover rightful wages and benefits. The Court emphasized that factual findings of labor officials, when supported by evidence, are accorded respect and finality.