G.R. No. L-55971 February 28, 1985
FLEXO MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and VIRGILIO M. MANTES, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Flexo Manufacturing Corporation terminated the employment of private respondent Virgilio M. Mantes, a slitting machine operator, allegedly for abandonment. Mantes was absent starting April 18, 1977, due to influenza. He sent a handwritten note via a co-worker to his foreman on the morning of his absence and later presented a medical certificate upon attempting to return to work on April 25, 1977. The company’s managers refused to issue the required excuse slip, effectively barring him from work. Mantes subsequently received a copy of a clearance application filed by Flexo, stating he was terminated for abandonment effective May 20, 1977, for being absent from April 19 and only reporting on May 10. Mantes filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter dismissed his complaint and granted the clearance to terminate. Mantes appealed to the NLRC.
The NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter’s decision, ordering Mantes’s reinstatement with full backwages from April 25, 1977. Flexo filed this certiorari petition, contending the NLRC acted with grave abuse of discretion. It argued it was not notified of the appeal, violating due process; the appeal was not timely filed; and the award of nearly four years of backwages was excessive given the Labor Arbiter’s undisturbed factual findings.

ISSUE

The primary issues were: (1) whether the NLRC acquired jurisdiction over the appeal despite Flexo’s claim of non-service of the notice of appeal; (2) whether the NLRC erred in not inquiring into the timeliness of the appeal; and (3) whether the award of full backwages from 1977 was proper.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the NLRC’s decision with modification on the backwages. On the procedural issues, the Court found that a copy of the notice and memorandum of appeal was duly sent via registered mail to Flexo’s counsel of record, as evidenced by registry receipts. Service to counsel constitutes service to the party. The claim of non-service was unsubstantiated. Furthermore, the timeliness of the appeal was a question of fact best left to the NLRC, which had impliedly found the appeal timely filed by entertaining it. The Court will not review factual determinations supported by substantial evidence.
On the merits, the Court upheld the NLRC’s finding of illegal dismissal. Abandonment requires a clear, deliberate, and unjustified refusal to resume employment. Mantes’s actions—sending a notice of illness, presenting a medical certificate, and pleading to be allowed to work—negated any intent to abandon. His failure to subsequently report was a consequence of the company’s refusal to accept him back, not a voluntary severance. Thus, the dismissal was without just cause.
However, the Court modified the backwages award. Citing the prevailing policy of “tempering” full backwages to avoid prolonged litigation burdens, and considering the case had been pending for almost eight years, the Court deemed an award of three years’ backwages, computed from his last pay rate as of April 25, 1977, as fair, just, and reasonable. The order of reinstatement was affirmed.