G.R. No. L-75763 August 2, 1987
GEORGE R. PALENCIA, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ABERDEEN COURT INC., and RICARDO NG, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner George R. Palencia, an employee of Aberdeen Court, Inc., filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and money claims. The incident stemmed from a February 23, 1984 trip to Baguio where, after unloading company vegetables, a plastic bag with three pieces of pechay was found on the driver’s seat. Palencia was investigated by the Quezon City police the next day, where he invoked his right to counsel and against self-incrimination. He was released around midnight. From February 25 to March 1, he did not report for work, claiming treatment for gastric ulcers. On March 2, he returned to work but was asked to return the next day as the company wished to consult its lawyer. Palencia did not return and instead filed his complaint on March 6, 1984.
The Labor Arbiter ruled in Palencia’s favor, ordering his reinstatement with full backwages. On appeal, the NLRC set aside the award of backwages but upheld the order of reinstatement, effectively finding no illegal dismissal but ordering his acceptance back to work. Palencia’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this petition for certiorari alleging grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC.

ISSUE

Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in reversing the Labor Arbiter’s finding of illegal dismissal and in its alleged failure to apply petitioner’s constitutional rights against self-incrimination and to due process.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The core issue of whether Palencia was dismissed or abandoned his work is factual. The Court consistently accords finality to the factual findings of the NLRC, which performs the functions of the former Court of Industrial Relations, absent a showing of grave abuse of discretion. No such abuse was found. The NLRC’s determination that Palencia was not dismissed but had abandoned his work, based on the sequence of events including his failure to report after being asked to return, is conclusive.
Regarding the constitutional issues, the Court found them unsubstantiated. There was no averment or evidence that Palencia was ever compelled to be a witness against himself; the record showed he properly invoked his rights during the police investigation. The claim of a due process violation was tenuous, as Palencia’s complaint was duly heard, with his memoranda considered by both the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC under Labor Code procedures. The petition failed to demonstrate that the NLRC’s findings were unsubstantiated by evidence or constituted a capricious exercise of judgment.