G.R. No. 80389 June 18, 1990
Hua Bee Shirt Factory and/or Chan Man Lin, petitioners, vs. The Honorable National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) (First Division) and Celia Ocampo, respondents.

FACTS

Celia Ocampo was employed as a high-speed sewer on a piece-rate basis by Hua Bee Shirt Factory from 1978 until October 15, 1984. She filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, alleging she was dismissed because the petitioner suspected her of leading a union formation. The petitioner, however, contended that Ocampo was not dismissed but had voluntarily refused to report for work following a disagreement over new piece-rate scales.
The Labor Arbiter dismissed Ocampo’s complaint. The Arbiter noted that during a hearing, the company’s counsel had offered Ocampo reinstatement, which she categorically refused. The Arbiter concluded she was guilty of abandonment. On appeal, the NLRC reversed this decision. The NLRC found that the offer of reinstatement was not made in good faith and that Ocampo’s immediate filing of the complaint negated any intent to abandon her work. The NLRC ordered her reinstatement with payment of six months’ backwages. The petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court, challenging the award of backwages.

ISSUE

Whether the National Labor Relations Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in awarding six months’ backwages to the private respondent, Celia Ocampo.

RULING

The Supreme Court upheld the NLRC’s decision and affirmed the award of backwages. The Court’s ruling was anchored on the failure of the employer to substantiate its claim of abandonment and its failure to follow due process in termination.
On the issue of abandonment, the Court emphasized that abandonment is a matter of intention and cannot be lightly inferred. It requires a deliberate and unjustified refusal to resume employment. The immediate filing of the illegal dismissal complaint just two days after her alleged dismissal strongly contradicted any suggestion that Ocampo intended to sever her employment. The petitioners failed to present clear evidence of such intent. The Court also noted that the Labor Arbiter’s finding that Ocampo refused reinstatement during a March 4, 1985 hearing was unsupported by the records, as no formal hearing occurred on that date; only a resetting was made.
Furthermore, the Court ruled that the petitioners’ failure to serve a written notice of dismissal on Ocampo constituted illegal dismissal. Due process in termination requires both a written notice specifying the grounds and a hearing or opportunity to be heard. The absence of this fundamental requirement rendered the dismissal illegal. An employee illegally dismissed is entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and to full backwages. The award of six months’ backwages by the NLRC was therefore a proper and equitable remedy under the circumstances. The petition was dismissed for lack of merit.