G.R. No. L-61684 October 11, 1983
Rolando Roxas Surveying Company, petitioner, vs. National Labor Relations Commission and Mathew Leonardo, respondents.

FACTS

Mathew Leonardo was employed as a surveyman by Rolando Roxas Surveying Company on March 1, 1976, based on his 14 years of prior experience with the Bureau of Lands. He was assigned to a cadastral survey project in Surigao del Sur, receiving a monthly salary of P450.00 and supervising a team of seven men. In September 1976, he took a 15-day vacation leave. Upon its expiration, he was prevented from returning to work by the project engineer unless he obtained the petitioner’s consent. Despite attempts to contact the petitioner, including a telegram and a phone call, he was informed he could no longer return due to alleged irregularities committed during his employment. This led to Leonardo filing a complaint for illegal dismissal, unpaid wages, and unpaid per diems.
The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Leonardo, ordering his reinstatement with full back wages from October 1, 1976. On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) modified the decision, deleting the reinstatement order and instead awarding Leonardo two years of back wages and separation pay, citing that reinstatement would be “imprudent and impracticable.” The petitioner company then filed this certiorari petition, arguing that Leonardo was merely an apprentice or a project employee who could be terminated at any time, and that his alleged dishonesty and prior criminal conviction justified dismissal without back wages.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether Mathew Leonardo was a regular employee illegally dismissed, thereby entitling him to back wages and separation pay.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the NLRC’s award. The Court meticulously dismantled the petitioner’s arguments. First, it found the allegations of Leonardo’s misconduct, such as unauthorized collection of money, to be unsupported by substantial evidence, as the sole witness did not confront Leonardo or present the alleged victims. Second, the Court rejected the claim that Leonardo was an apprentice or a project employee without a fixed term. The letter presented by the petitioner, instructing an engineer to “assess” Leonardo, did not constitute a written apprenticeship agreement. Conversely, the circumstances—his hiring based on extensive experience, a fixed monthly salary, and supervisory duties—clearly established him as a regular employee under Article 281 of the Labor Code, performing work necessary and desirable to the petitioner’s business.
As a regular employee, Leonardo could only be terminated for just or authorized causes enumerated in Article 283 of the Labor Code. The petitioner failed to prove any such cause. The Court agreed with the NLRC’s finding that reinstatement was no longer viable due to the strained relations, making the award of separation pay in lieu of reinstatement proper. Furthermore, the award of two years’ back wages was justified as equitable relief for the illegal dismissal, considering the financial hardship suffered by Leonardo and the absence of proof that he had found alternative livelihood. The Court emphasized that the petitioner’s failure to substantiate its grounds for dismissal demonstrated bad faith, warranting the monetary awards.