GR 74229; (August, 1989) (Digest)
G.R. No. 74229, August 11, 1989
Shoemart, Inc., and Romeo B. Perez, petitioners, vs. National Labor Relations Commission (First Division) and Maxima R. Soriano, respondents.
FACTS
Maxima Soriano was a salesclerk at Shoemart. After a prior dismissal case was settled with her reinstatement in July 1981, she applied for and was granted successive leaves due to a difficult pregnancy: a 15-day sick leave, a 4-month vacation leave, and a 45-day maternity leave ending April 7, 1982. After her maternity leave expired, Soriano did not report for work. On April 15, 1982, she sent a note stating she had not yet delivered, but Shoemart informed her through her husband to report on May 30, 1982. She failed to report on that date or on subsequent days and provided no further explanation for her absence. Consequently, Shoemart terminated her services for abandonment of work.
ISSUE
Was Soriano illegally dismissed, warranting reinstatement with backwages, despite her prolonged unexplained absence after an approved leave?
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the NLRC’s order for reinstatement. The legal logic is bifurcated, addressing substantive just cause and procedural due process separately. On the substantive aspect, the Court found a valid ground for dismissal. Soriano’s failure to report after her approved maternity leave ended, coupled with her unexplained absence from May 30, 1982, to the filing of her complaint on October 7, 1983—a period exceeding one year and four months—constituted gross neglect of duty and abandonment. Her single note in April did not justify this prolonged absence, and she offered no valid reason for not reporting as instructed on May 30.
On the procedural aspect, the Court agreed with the NLRC that Shoemart failed to comply with the twin-notice requirement under BP Blg. 130, which mandates a written notice stating the grounds for dismissal and an opportunity for the employee to answer. This failure rendered the dismissal procedurally defective. However, applying the precedent in Wenphil Corp. v. NLRC, the Court held that where a dismissal is for a just cause but procedurally flawed, reinstatement is not warranted as it would impose an undeserving employee on the employer. Instead, the employer must pay indemnity for the due process violation. Considering the length of Soriano’s unexplained absence and the gravity of the omission, the Court sustained the dismissal but ordered Shoemart to pay Soriano an indemnity of P1,000.00 for the procedural lapse, while affirming the monetary awards for wage differentials and withheld benefits.