GR 196830; (February, 2012) (Digest)
G.R. No. 196830 ; February 29, 2012
CESAR V. GARCIA, ET AL., represented by SERENO, and CESAR V. GARCIA, Petitioners, vs. KJ COMMERCIAL and REYNALDO QUE, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners were employed as truck drivers and helpers by respondent KJ Commercial, a sole proprietorship engaged in distributing cement. On January 2, 2006, petitioners demanded a ₱40 daily salary increase. To pressure the company, they stopped working, abandoned their trucks at the Northern Cement Plant Station in Sison, Pangasinan, and blocked other workers from reporting for work. On February 3, 2006, petitioners filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, underpayment of salary, and non-payment of service incentive leave and thirteenth-month pay.
The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of petitioners, declaring they were illegally dismissed and awarding separation pay and backwages. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) initially dismissed KJ Commercial’s appeal for failure to post the required appeal bond, but later granted its motion for reconsideration after a surety bond was posted. The NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter, finding that petitioners were not dismissed but had abandoned their work by staging an illegal work stoppage. The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC’s ruling.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the NLRC’s decision which held that petitioners were not illegally dismissed but had abandoned their employment.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. The Court held that petitioners were not illegally dismissed but had abandoned their work. The facts established that petitioners staged a work stoppage and abandoned their trucks to coerce a salary increase, which constitutes abandonment. Abandonment is a voluntary act and a just cause for termination under Article 282 of the Labor Code. The employer’s subsequent act of hiring replacements, after petitioners unjustifiably refused to return to work, did not equate to dismissal. The burden of proof to show illegal dismissal was not discharged by petitioners; instead, the evidence showed they engaged in an illegal strike. The NLRC correctly reversed the Labor Arbiter’s decision, and its procedural ruling to accept the late appeal bond was a valid exercise of discretion to serve the interests of substantial justice.