GR L 60067; (August, 1982) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-60067 August 19, 1982
SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and RODOLFO CALAYAG, respondents.
FACTS
Rodolfo Calayag, a receiver/issuer at San Miguel Corporation, was dismissed for repeated absences without leave. The company had a rule allowing dismissal for nine such absences within a calendar year. After receiving clearance from the Ministry of Labor, San Miguel terminated Calayag’s employment. The Labor Arbiter found Calayag had ten absences without leave. However, considering dismissal too drastic, the Arbiter ordered his reinstatement without backwages, holding that prior absences already penalized with suspension should not be counted toward the nine required for dismissal to avoid double jeopardy.
Calayag appealed solely to claim backwages but failed to furnish San Miguel Corporation a copy of his appeal. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), unaware of this procedural lapse, decided the appeal ex parte. It granted Calayag backwages from November 1979 until reinstatement, amounting to P29,120 by February 1982. San Miguel, learning of the appeal only upon service of the NLRC decision, filed this petition for certiorari to annul the NLRC ruling.
ISSUE
Whether the NLRC decision granting backwages to Calayag is valid despite being rendered without affording San Miguel Corporation an opportunity to be heard.
RULING
The Supreme Court set aside the NLRC decision and reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s ruling. The NLRC committed a grave error by deciding Calayag’s appeal without notifying San Miguel, violating Section 7, Rule XIII of the NLRC Rules, which requires an appellant to furnish the appellee a copy of the appeal. This rule ensures fair play and prevents ex parte resolutions. Due process mandates that San Miguel be heard on the appeal for backwages.
On the merits, the Court clarified the company’s absence rule. The graduated penalties, culminating in dismissal after nine absences, are cumulative. Prior absences already sanctioned with suspension are correctly included in counting the nine absences; the “double jeopardy” argument is inapplicable in labor discipline. While the Labor Arbiter validly exercised discretion in ordering reinstatement without backwages as a compassionate alternative to dismissal, granting backwages on top of reinstatement was inequitable. Calayag’s infractions warranted discipline, and the Arbiter’s balanced solution—reinstatement without backwages—was just under the circumstances.