G.R. No. 225100 , February 19, 2020
Every Nation Language Institute (ENLI) and Ralph Martin Ligon, Petitioners, v. Maria Minellie Dela Cruz, Respondent.

FACTS

ENLI hired Maria Minellie Dela Cruz as a Marketing Officer in August 2011, and she later became Branch Administrator of its Calamba, Laguna branch. ENLI alleged it received client complaints about unanswered calls and Dela Cruz’s tardiness, and that she failed to submit required financial reports despite directives. On May 30, 2012, Dela Cruz reported to the barangay hall ENLI’s non-payment of teachers’ salaries. On June 5, 2012, she filed a complaint for underpayment of salaries and other money claims before the Labor Arbiter. ENLI continued its investigation, alleging Dela Cruz committed infractions including non-issuance of official receipts, insubordination, and dishonesty involving a P100,000.00 check. On June 22, 2012, ENLI issued a Notice to Suspend placing Dela Cruz under a 30-day preventive suspension to investigate these charges. She refused to acknowledge receipt. The suspension period lapsed on July 22, 2012, but Dela Cruz did not report back for work. In her complaint, Dela Cruz claimed she was illegally suspended and terminated, and that for June 2012 she received only P500.00 instead of her P12,000.00 salary. Petitioners argued she was not dismissed but only preventively suspended, which was justified due to her access to confidential documents.
The Labor Arbiter dismissed Dela Cruz’s complaint on February 21, 2013, finding she was merely suspended, not dismissed, at the time her complaint was filed, and that her money claims lacked merit. On appeal, the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter in a Decision dated June 28, 2013, finding Dela Cruz illegally dismissed. The NLRC held petitioners’ evidence (affidavits from employees) was self-serving, and that Dela Cruz’s suspension and eventual dismissal were prompted by her report to the barangay. It awarded backwages, 13th-month pay, and separation pay. Petitioners moved for reconsideration, arguing Dela Cruz’s appeal to the NLRC was filed out of time. The NLRC denied the motion, finding the appeal was seasonably filed based on the date of receipt stated in her Memorandum of Appeal. Petitioners then filed a certiorari petition before the CA, arguing the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in giving due course to an out-of-time appeal and in reversing the Labor Arbiter’s factual findings. The CA dismissed the petition in its Decision dated September 18, 2015, upholding the NLRC’s finding that the appeal was timely and not addressing the substantive issue of illegal dismissal. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not reviewing the conflicting factual findings of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC and, consequently, in not dismissing the complaint for illegal dismissal.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the CA Decision, and reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s Decision dismissing the complaint for illegal dismissal. The Court held that the CA committed a reversible error by limiting its review to the procedural issue of the timeliness of the appeal and failing to resolve the substantive issue of illegal dismissal, which was properly raised by the petitioners. In a Rule 45 petition, the Court reviews errors of law, and the CA’s omission constituted an error of law warranting reversal. On the merits, the Court found that Dela Cruz was not illegally dismissed but had abandoned her employment. The 30-day preventive suspension was justified under Article 279 of the Labor Code as a precautionary measure due to the serious charges against her and her access to company records. The suspension ended on July 22, 2012, but Dela Cruz never reported back to work or inquired about her status, demonstrating a clear intention to sever the employment relationship. Petitioners were not obligated to formally terminate her after the suspension; her failure to return constituted abandonment. Furthermore, her filing of the labor complaint on June 5, 2012, while merely under suspension, was premature for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter’s factual findings, which were supported by evidence and showed the suspension was for a just cause, deserved respect and were more conformable to the evidence and the law than the NLRC’s conclusions.