G.R. No. 172670 January 20, 2009
RBC CABLE MASTER SYSTEM AND/OR EVELYN CINENSE, Petitioners, vs. MARCIAL BALUYOT, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner RBC Cable Master System, owned and managed by Engr. Reynaldo Cinense and his wife Evelyn Cinense, hired respondent Marcial Baluyot as a Lineman in March 1996. He later became a collector. In March 2000, a new salary scheme for collectors was imposed where remuneration was computed at 5% based on total monthly collections. Respondent incurred cash advances amounting to P18,000.00, and he delivered a Yamaha motorcycle registered in his name as security, evidenced by a Deed of Chattel Mortgage. On February 1, 2001, respondent was informed he was being suspended for one month and was not issued official receipts for his collection job. When he reported back after the suspension, he was told he was out of a job and considered terminated. Petitioners denied dismissal, contending respondent abandoned his work in March 2001 and committed several infractions: not issuing official receipts, not remitting collections, misappropriating funds, falsifying checks to cover misappropriations, engaging in illegal cable installations, and stealing a company motorcycle, leading to the filing of criminal cases against him. Petitioners alleged they suspended respondent for one month effective February 1, 2001, recalled him to work on March 1, 2001 where he executed a promissory note, but he later did not report for work. Respondent filed a case for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint, finding abandonment and acts of dishonesty. The NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter, finding illegal dismissal. The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC with modification on the computation of separation pay.

ISSUE

1. Whether the NLRC could resolve the issue of abandonment despite it not being specifically raised on appeal.
2. Whether respondent was illegally dismissed.

RULING

1. Yes, the NLRC did not abuse its discretion in resolving the issue of abandonment. Respondent’s Appeal Memorandum raised as grounds grave abuse of discretion and serious errors in the findings of fact by the Labor Arbiter, which inherently included a challenge to the finding of abandonment. The NLRC has the authority to review decisions based on the records and evidence, and the issue of abandonment was integral to determining the legality of dismissal.
2. Yes, respondent was illegally dismissed. Petitioners failed to substantiate the alleged infractions with clear and convincing evidence. The alleged acts of dishonesty, such as misappropriation and falsification, were not proven. The suspension and subsequent recall to work, coupled with the execution of a promissory note, indicated condonation of the past infractions. Petitioners did not comply with the twin requirements of substantive and procedural due process in termination. There was no valid cause for dismissal, and respondent did not abandon his work as he reported back after his suspension. Since reinstatement was no longer viable due to strained relations from the criminal cases, separation pay in lieu of reinstatement and backwages were awarded. The Court of Appeals correctly awarded separation pay equivalent to one month pay for every year of service from March 1, 2001, up to the finality of the decision, and backwages from the time of illegal termination up to finality of the decision. The petition was denied.