Jackson Building Condominium Corporation vs.. National Labor Relations Commission

Jackson Building Condominium Corporation vs. National Labor Relations Commission

244 SCRA 329 (G.R. No. 111511

July 14, 1995

FACTS

Ferdinand Gumogda was employed as a janitor by the Jackson Building Condominium Corporation. On November 15, 1992, he filed a 45-day leave of absence to undergo appendectomy which was granted.

On January 3, 1992, he informed the company’s president, Razul Requesto, that he was physically fit to assumed his work. However, he was refused because of allegedly abandoning his work.

By reason of this, he filed with the labor arbiter a complaint against his employer for illegal dismissal, underpayment of wages and nonpayment of thirteenth month pay and service incentive leave pay.

As a reply, his employer, Jackson Building Condominium Corporation, alleged that he was merely ask to rest until he could produce a medical certificate. But he failed to return or to submit a medical certificate.

The labor arbiter decided in his favor. The decision was appealed by his employer to the NLRC. But the NLRC twice affirmed the decision of the labor arbiter.

ISSUE

1.       Whether or not the employee abandoned his work.

2.       Whether or not the employeer is liable for the payment of the employee’s backwages, differential pay, thirteenth month pay and service incentive leave pay.

HELD

For abandonment to be a valid ground for dismissal, two requisites must be compresent: the intention by an employee to abandon coupled with an overt act from which it may be inferred that the employee had no more intention to resume his work (People’s Security, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 226 SCRA 146 [1993]).

As found by the Labor Arbiter, private respondent’s physician advised him to rest for 30 days before reporting back for work in order to recuperate. Private respondent heeded this advise and even exceeded the number of days recommended by his doctor for his recuperation. In fact, he reported back for work 50 days after his operation. This would clearly show that private respondent was ready to assume his responsibilities considering that he had fully recovered from the operation. Furthermore, the filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal by private respondent is inconsistent with the allegation of petitioners that he had abandoned his job. Surely, an employee’s posture will be illogical if he abandons his work and then immediately files an action for his reinstatement (Remerco Garments Manufacturing v. Minister of Labor and Employment, 135 SCRA 167 [1985]).

Section 31 of R.A. No. 6715 which amended Article 279 of the Labor Code of the Philippines provides that “an employee who is unjustly dismissed from work shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to his full back wages, inclusive of allowances, and to his other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from the time his compensation was withheld from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement.”

The award of back wages by NLRC to private respondent was predicated on the ground that he was illegally dismissed and not on his failure to report for work (Llosa-Tan v. Silahis International Hotel, 181 SCRA 738 [1990]).

Private respondent is likewise entitled to the thirteenth-month pay. Presidential Decree No. 851, as amended by Memorandum Order No. 28, provides that employees are entitled to the thirteenth-month pay benefit regardless of their designation and irrespective of the method by which their wages are paid.