GR 94237; (February, 1997) (Digest)
G.R. No. 94237 February 26, 1997
BUILDING CARE CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, FIRST DIVISION, and ROGELIO RODIL, respondents.
FACTS
Rogelio Rodil, an employee of Building Care Corporation, filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, underpayment, and non-payment of holiday pay. He alleged that on February 11, 1988, he was illegally suspended for one week by his supervisor without just cause and due process. Following this suspension, he was not given any work assignments despite repeated follow-ups, culminating in being informed on April 4, 1988, that he would no longer be given work. The petitioner corporation presented a different version, contending that the suspension was erroneously noted but not implemented, and that Rodil was transferred shifts and later offered a reliever position. It claimed Rodil abandoned his job by taking unauthorized leaves and failing to report as instructed after April 4, 1988.
ISSUE
Whether the National Labor Relations Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the Labor Arbiter’s decision which found that Rodil was illegally dismissed.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The Court emphasized that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is limited to correcting errors of jurisdiction, not errors of judgment. It reiterated that a motion for reconsideration is generally an indispensable precondition to such a petition, a requirement not satisfied here. More fundamentally, the Court upheld the factual findings of the NLRC, which affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s conclusion that Rodil was illegally dismissed. The NLRC found the petitioner’s claim of abandonment unsubstantiated, noting that Rodil’s absences were justified and that he consistently sought work assignments. The burden of proving payment of wages and lawful dismissal rests on the employer, which the petitioner failed to discharge. The Court ruled that factual determinations of the NLRC, when supported by evidence, are binding and not subject to review. The award of attorney’s fees was also sustained as Rodil was forced to litigate to protect his rights.