G.R. No. L-66890 April 15, 1988
Herminio Flores and Herminia Flores, petitioners, vs. Funeraria Nuestro and/or Fortunato Nuestro and the National Labor Relations Commission, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Herminio and Herminia Flores worked for respondent Fortunato Nuestro at Funeraria Nuestro since 1976 as a helper-utility man and bookkeeper/embalmer, respectively. They were registered with the SSS in October 1980, received salaries and allowances, and were provided living quarters inside the funeral parlor compound. On October 30, 1982, an altercation occurred wherein respondent physically assaulted Herminio Flores, causing injuries that required hospital treatment. Fearing for their safety, the petitioners vacated their living quarters and sought police protection.
Subsequently, the petitioners filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and various monetary claims. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint, finding no employer-employee relationship and ruling that petitioners had abandoned their work. On appeal, the NLRC reversed the finding on the employment relationship, recognizing its existence primarily due to the SSS registration. However, it upheld the finding of abandonment, thus denying reinstatement and backwages, but ordered the payment of living allowances for the period from October 1980 to October 1982.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling that the petitioners abandoned their employment, thereby precluding a finding of illegal dismissal and the grant of reinstatement and backwages.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in its finding of abandonment. The legal logic establishes that abandonment requires a clear and deliberate intent to sever the employment relationship, which was absent here. The petitioners’ act of vacating their quarters was a direct and necessary consequence of the physical assault inflicted by the employer, constituting a legitimate fear for their personal safety. Their immediate filing of an illegal dismissal complaint, which included a prayer for reinstatement, positively demonstrated their desire to return to work and negated any intention to abandon their positions.
Consequently, the petitioners were illegally dismissed. The general remedy for illegal dismissal is reinstatement with full backwages. However, due to the violent altercation and the evident strain in the relationship between the parties, the Court deemed reinstatement no longer feasible. As a reasonable alternative, the Court awarded each petitioner backwages equivalent to six months’ pay based on their latest salary rates. The Court affirmed the NLRC’s order for the payment of living allowances from October 1980 to October 1982 but sustained the disallowance of other monetary claims for insufficient evidence. The decision was modified accordingly.