G.R. No. 83631 . April 30, 1993.
NEW IMUS LUMBER and/or FERNANDO AMBIO, petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and ZOSIMO SUNGA, CARLITO SAMBAT, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner New Imus Lumber, managed by Fernando Ambio, employed Carlito Sambat on January 15, 1980 and Zosimo Sunga on June 14, 1980. Petitioner alleged that both employees abandoned their jobs, reporting to the MOLE that Sunga had been absent without leave (AWOL) since August 15, 1984, and Sambat since May 13, 1986. On June 26, 1986, Sambat and Sunga filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, underpayment of wages, and nonpayment of allowances. The Labor Arbiter found illegal dismissal and ordered reinstatement with six months’ backwages and wage differentials for 1980-1982. On appeal, the NLRC modified the decision, finding that Sunga had abandoned his job (noting his two-year delay in filing the complaint) but awarding him separation pay due to the employer’s failure to give the 30-day written notice required by BP 130. For Sambat, the NLRC found no clear intent to abandon (as he filed the complaint about two months after being reported AWOL) and ordered his reinstatement with full backwages. The NLRC also dismissed the wage differential claims as prescribed. Petitioner filed this certiorari, contending the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in reinstating Sambat with backwages and granting separation pay to Sunga, insisting both had abandoned their jobs.

ISSUE

Whether the National Labor Relations Commission gravely abused its discretion in finding that Carlito Sambat was illegally dismissed (warranting reinstatement with backwages) and in awarding separation pay to Zosimo Sunga.

RULING

The Supreme Court found no grave abuse of discretion. On the factual issue of abandonment, the Court upheld the findings of the quasi-judicial agencies, which are accorded respect and finality if supported by substantial evidence. The Labor Arbiter and NLRC found it difficult to believe the employees abandoned their well-paid jobs with lodging after years of service. The filing of the complaint for illegal dismissal itself negated the allegation of abandonment, proving their desire to return to work. Petitioner failed to substantiate its claim of abandonment with evidence and even failed to cross-examine the complainants’ witnesses. The burden of proving just cause for dismissal rests on the employer, which petitioner failed to discharge. Therefore, the finding of illegal dismissal for Sambat was proper, warranting reinstatement. However, backwages were limited to three years from the time of illegal dismissal, not full backwages up to actual reinstatement, as the dismissal occurred before the effectivity of Republic Act No. 6715 . Regarding Sunga, the Court agreed that the two-year delay in filing did not necessarily prove abandonment or laches, as an action for illegal dismissal prescribes in four years. While the Court agreed with the NLRC’s observation that petitioner failed to comply with the procedural due process requirement of a 30-day notice under BP 130, the award of “separation pay” was improper. The sanction for non-compliance with procedural due process is an indemnity, not separation pay, which is appropriate only when there is a just cause for dismissal but the procedure was violated. Here, no just cause for dismissal existed; hence, the remedies are reinstatement and backwages. Since Sunga was found to have abandoned his job (a just cause), he was not entitled to reinstatement, but the procedural defect warranted an indemnity. However, the Court did not affirm the specific award, as the decision’s text cuts off, but the reasoning indicates the separation pay award was set aside or modified to an indemnity. The petition was dismissed.