GR 73806; (March, 1990) (Digest)
G.R. No. 73806 March 21, 1990
TACLOBAN SAGKAHAN RICE and CORN MILLS, CO., and/or TAN CHENG PIAN (alias PIANA), Owner, petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, SECOND DIVISION, THE HONORABLE EXECUTIVE LABOR ARBITER, REGIONAL ARBITRATION BRANCH NO. VIII, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, TACLOBAN CITY, and, CARLITO CODILAN, MAXIMO DOCENA, TEOFILO TRANGRIA, EUGENIO GO, and, REYNALDO TULIN, respondents.
FACTS
The private respondents were regular employees of the petitioner rice mill, with service ranging from 1958 to 1977. On July 25, 1983, petitioner Tan Cheng Pian informed them to “look for another job” without providing any reason. Consequently, the employees filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. During the proceedings, they sought separation pay instead of reinstatement, having found other employment. The Labor Arbiter ruled in their favor, ordering payment of separation pay, a decision affirmed by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).
Petitioners contested the ruling, arguing that the termination was a valid exercise of management prerogative. They claimed the milling operation was temporarily stopped due to a lack of palay, characterizing the workers as seasonal employees who could be temporarily laid off during off-seasons. They further asserted that their subsequent offer to reinstate the workers, which was refused, constituted voluntary abandonment of work by the employees, barring any claim for separation benefits.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether the termination of the private respondents constituted illegal dismissal, thereby entitling them to separation pay.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the NLRC’s resolution, ruling that the private respondents were illegally dismissed and were entitled to separation pay. The Court first determined the employees’ status, applying Article 280 of the Labor Code. It found that the respondents, having performed activities necessary in the usual business of a rice mill for many years, were regular employees, not seasonal workers. Their engagement was not fixed for a specific project or season at the time of hiring.
The Court then examined the cause for termination. Petitioners failed to prove any lawful ground under Article 283, such as closure, cessation of operation, or retrenchment to prevent losses. The mere allegation of a temporary stoppage due to lack of palay was insufficient and was negated by the petitioner’s own subsequent offer of reinstatement. This offer, made only after the complaint was filed, was deemed an attempt to evade liability rather than proof of a valid temporary layoff. The refusal of the employees, already gainfully employed elsewhere, to accept this belated offer did not constitute abandonment. The Court emphasized that abandonment is inconsistent with the immediate filing of an illegal dismissal complaint. Since the dismissal was without lawful cause, the award of separation pay was the proper legal recourse. The petition was dismissed.