GR 96488; (September, 1993) (Digest)
G.R. No. 96488 September 27, 1993
INDOPHIL ACRYLIC MFG. CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND ONOFRE T. DE JESUS, respondents.
FACTS
Private respondent Onofre T. de Jesus was employed as a Cadet Engineer by petitioner Indophil Acrylic Mfg. Corporation on February 14, 1989. On September 26, 1989, he was prevented by the company guard from entering the premises on the ground that he had resigned. Consequently, on October 4, 1989, he filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, non-payment of salary from September 10-25, 1989, underpayment of salary, and damages. Petitioner countered that private respondent submitted a letter of resignation on September 14, 1989, which it accepted, but that private respondent retrieved this letter from the office secretary on September 15, 1989, and thereafter failed to report for work. Petitioner’s personnel manager sent a letter dated October 2, 1989, requiring private respondent to report and explain his unauthorized absences within three days, warning that failure would be considered resignation due to job abandonment. The Labor Arbiter found the dismissal lawful, based on resignation and abandonment, but granted money claims. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed this decision, declaring the dismissal illegal and ordering reinstatement with backwages.
ISSUE
Whether or not public respondent NLRC acted with grave abuse of discretion in reversing the Labor Arbiter’s decision and ordering the reinstatement of private respondent with backwages.
RULING
The Supreme Court modified the NLRC’s resolution. It held that there was NO DISMISSAL. The October 2, 1989 letter from petitioner’s personnel manager, which required private respondent to report and explain his absences, indicated that petitioner still considered private respondent an employee and had disregarded any prior resignation. Therefore, at the time the complaint was filed, no dismissal had been effected by petitioner. The allegation that private respondent was barred entry on September 26, 1989, based on a logbook entry, was belied by the subsequent October 2 letter. Since there was no dismissal, the status quo should be maintained, but given the ruptured relationship, the Court ordered petitioner to grant separation pay of one month’s salary in lieu of reinstatement. The award of backwages was deleted, as private respondent was not illegally dismissed, but the award of money claims was affirmed.