GR L 50296; (February, 1983) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-50296 February 14, 1983
RICARDO ALZOSA, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and METAL LUX INDUSTRIES, INC., respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Ricardo Alzosa was dismissed by private respondent Metal Lux Industries, Inc. on grounds of serious misconduct, willful disobedience, and gross neglect of duties, citing habitual absences, tardiness, and an incident of insubordination. Alzosa filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled in his favor, ordering his reinstatement with full back wages from his dismissal on May 2, 1975, until actual reinstatement. On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the illegality of the dismissal and the order for reinstatement but deleted the award of back wages. The NLRC found that while the company failed to prove its attendance policy or justify dismissal for the alleged insubordination, Alzosa was not entirely blameless, warranting a denial of back wages as a form of penalty. Alzosa elevated the case via certiorari, contesting the denial of back wages as a violation of the constitutional guarantee of security of tenure.
ISSUE
Whether the denial of back wages, despite a finding of illegal dismissal and an order of reinstatement, constitutes a violation of the constitutional right to security of tenure.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the petition, affirming the order of reinstatement but reversing the NLRC’s denial of back wages. The Court held that the constitutional mandate of security of tenure is vitalized by awarding back wages when a dismissal is declared illegal. The NLRC’s own findings undermined the grounds for dismissal: the company’s failure to prove its attendance policy negated the charges of habitual absenteeism and tardiness, and the single act of assumed insubordination was deemed too minor to warrant dismissal, especially as the supervisor had only recommended a transfer. Denying back wages under these circumstances would effectively repudiate the guarantee of security of tenure established in jurisprudence, starting with Philippine Air Lines, Inc. v. Philippine Airlines Employees Association.
However, the Court modified the extent of the back wages awarded. While the general rule is to grant three years of back pay in such cases, the petitioner’s conduct mitigated the award. The records showed that Alzosa did not present himself for reinstatement after the Labor Arbiter’s decision, nor after subsequent orders, and he failed to respond to a written offer from the company to return to work. Although these acts did not constitute a voluntary renunciation of his right to reinstatement, they were properly considered in determining the equitable amount of back wages. Consequently, the Supreme Court awarded Alzosa back wages for a period of one year, making the decision immediately executory.