SOLID ENGINEERING & MACHINE WORKS, PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMIS­SION AND LUIS LOPEZ, RESPONDENTS.

In its decision dated April 3, 1987, the National Labor Relations
Commission affirmed with modification the decision of Labor Arbiter Apolonio
Lomabao, Jr. dated February 12, 1986, and commanded petitioner Solid
Engineering & Machine Works to reinstate an employee it had dismissed, Luis
Lopez, to his former position without loss of seniority rights and pay him back
wages equivalent to one year as well as moral and exemplary damages. In so ruling, however, both the Commission
and the Arbiter unaccountably ignored and disregarded facts established by the
employer and never rebutted by Lopez and consequently, so gravely abused their
discretion as to call for the issuance by this Court of the corrective writ of certiorari.

Since November, 1973, Luis Lopez had been employed in Solid
Engineering & Machine Works (hereafter, simply SOLID) as field
representative and salesman, supervising the firm’s clients’ and customers’ job
orders. He went on approved leave of
absence from August 1 to 31, 1984. In
his application for leave, Lopez stated as reason therefor: “medical check-up & complete
rest.”^[1]

SOLID shortly discovered that during his leave, Lopez sought
employment in and was actually hired on August 16, 1984 by a competitor
company, Asian Engine Rebuilders, Inc.; that the latter duly reported Lopez to
the Social Security System for coverage as its employee on August 27, 1984;^[2]
that Lopez obtained printed calling cards of his new employer, wrote his name
thereon to show his connection with Asian Engine Rebuilders, Inc. and
distributed them to different persons;^[3] and
that Lopez thereafter “pirated” customers or clients of SOLID,
inducing and causing them to transfer their business to Asian Engine
Rebuilders, Inc., his new employer.^[4]

It was on account of the foregoing, as well as Lopez’s failure to
report for work despite expiration of his leave on August 31, 1984,^[5]
that on September 5, 1984, SOLID filed with the Ministry of Labor and
Employment an application for clearance to terminate Lopez’s employment
effective on September 4, 1984 by reason of abandonment. On the same day, SOLID also sent some of its
clients a letter informing them that Lopez had ceased to be connected with it
since “August 1, 1984” and that SOLID would not thereafter accept or
honor any transactions entered into by Lopez in his behalf.^[6]

The fact is that no word was received by SOLID from Lopez from
August 31, 1984, when his leave expired, until sometime in the latter part of
October, 1984, at which time SOLID received a registered letter from Lopez’s
counsel, Atty. Macario C. Ofilada, Jr., dated October 22, 1984. It seems that Lopez was somehow able to get
hold of one of the letters sent out by SOLID to its customers advising them of
the termination of Lopez’s employment, supra, that sent to and received
by “CRUZZETTE MOTOR WORKS;” and that Lopez referred this letter and
other documents to Atty. Ofilada with the request that the latter take action
in respect of what Lopez evidently considered his illegal dismissal from
work. In that letter of October 22,
1984, Ofilada adverted to SOLID’s communication of September 5, 1984 to
“CRUZZETTE MOTOR WORKS” in which the latter was advised “that
subject employee is no longer connected with ** (SOLID) since August 1, 1984
(albeit) without any clearance from the Ministry of Labor which ** (was) only
made on September 5, 1984, and warned that unless there were some satisfactory
settlement, he would “initiate the remedies afforded by law to protect the
interest of ** (his) client.”^[7]

To this letter SOLID’s counsel, Atty. Pedro M. Caringal, replied
by letter dated November 7, 1984.^[8] He
pointed out that

1) the reference to August 1, 1984 as the date of Lopez’ cessation
of connection with SOLID was a “typographical error” and should
correctly read, September 1, 1984;

2) Lopez “had not been or terminated from employment”
but “had abandoned his job;”

3) “before the expiration of ** his leave of absence, Mr.
Lopez sought employment at Asian Engine Rebuilders, Inc., and ** was employed
thereat since 16 August 1984 ** (and) even showed and gave his new calling card
to one of ** (SOLID’s) employees;

4) to “make the matters worst, he even convinced other
customers/clients of Solid Engineering to transfer their job orders to Asian
Engine Rebuilders, Inc.;

5) these notwithstanding, SOLID “still waited for ** (Lopez)
to report for work after his leave of absence ** (but when the latter) failed
to report for work, the Ministry of Labor was informed that he had abandoned
his job.”

In April, 1985 Lopez filed with the Labor Arbiters’ Office a
complaint for illegal dismissal against SOLID. After due proceedings, the Labor Arbiter rendered judgment on October 4,
1985 ordering SOLID and its general manager, Joaquin G. Bonifacio, “to
reinstate complainant with full backwages without loss of seniority rights and
benefits and to pay him P20,000.00 moral damages and P5,000.00 exemplary
damages.” This judgment was affirmed by the National Labor Relations
Commission in its Decision of April 3, 1987, modifying it by reducing the back
wages to one year and the moral
damages to P10,000.00.^[9]

As intimated in this opinion’s opening paragraph, SOLID presented
evidence tending to establish the facts relied upon by it to demonstrate its
claim that Lopez had abandoned his work. These facts were detailed in its position paper, verified by its General
Manager, Joaquin Bonifacio,^[10] and
were substantiated by the documents appended to said position paper, to
wit: (1) copy of SOLID’s application
filed on September 5, 1984 with the Ministry of Labor for clearance to
terminate Lopez’s services (Annex 1 [the same as Lopez’s Annex B]); (2) copy of
Lopez’s approved application for vacation leave (Annex 2 [the same as Lopez’s
Annex A]); (3) copy of the report filed on August 27, 1984 with the Social
Security System by Asian Engine Rebuilders, Inc. for coverage of its new
employees under the Social Security Act, including “Luis R. Lopez,”
therein listed as “salesman” with a salary of “P1,800.00 per
mo.” (Annex 3); (4) a copy of one of SOLID’s letters to its customers
dated September 5, 1984, advising of the termination of Lopez’s connection,
that sent to “HANDOG Marketing” (Annex 4); (5) the affidavit of Joaquin
G. Bonifacio specifying Lopez’s acts of abandonment of his work at SOLID (Annex
5); (6) a copy of one of the printed calling cards of Asian Engine Rebuilders,
Inc. on which is written the name, “Luis R. Lopez” (Annex 3-A); and
(7) photocopies of the “blank and unfilled” time card and pay envelop
of Lopez corresponding to September, 1984 (Annexes 6 and 7). Said facts were also alleged in the letter
of SOLID’s counsel, dated November 7, 1984, in reply to the letter of Lopez’s
attorney dated October 22, 1984 (a copy of which was attached by Lopez to his
position paper, marked as Annex D), supra.

As regards these facts, the record discloses no categorical
denial or countervailing proof presented by Lopez. As already pointed out, Lopez never bothered to deny the
allegation that he had abandoned his job contained in the letter dated November
7, 1984 addressed to his lawyer by SOLID’s own attorney (Annex D). His position paper does not deal with the
matter of abandonment at all; all that he says about it is that he “was
surprised why respondent terminated his services, as in fact he filed his
vacation leave.” After receiving a copy of the respondent’s position paper
and its annexes — where the matter of his abandonment of his job with SOLID —
was reiterated with more detailed substantiation, he made no attempt to reply
thereto or present contrary evidence at any time thereafter. In fine, no
direct allegation was ever made and no proof of any kind whatsoever ever
adduced by Lopez, to
contradict the evidence’ that he had applied with and been hired by Asian
Engine Rebuilders, Inc. as a salesman; that Asian Engine Rebuilders, Inc., is a
competitor of SOLID, and had reported him as one of its new employees to the
Social Security System; that he had tried to divert business from SOLID to his
new employer, Asian Engine Rebuilders, Inc., and had used the printed calling
cards of his new employer; and that he had never reported back for work to
SOLID after the expiration of his vacation leave on August 31, 1984. Lopez simply closed his eyes to these proofs
on record. He completely ignored the
facts thereby established, as if they were non-existent. He merely insisted that there was no reason
for SOLID to consider him to have abandoned his work since “in fact he
filed his vacation leave.”

The trouble is, this was also what the Arbiter and the respondent
Commission did: close their eyes to the
evidence and to the facts thereby demonstrated. Arbiter Apolinario N. Lomabao’s Decision dated February 12, 1986
completely disregarded the evidence presented by SOLID without indicating in
any manner whatsoever why the evidence should be so discarded. Indeed, Arbiter Lomabao concedes that Lopez
did obtain “subsequent employment,” the reference being unmistakably
to his job in Asian Engine Rebuilders, Inc. This he however glosses over, and opted to base his ultimate conclusions
solely on the typographical error in SOLID’s letters to its customers dated
September 5, 1984, viz.:

“* * we find complainant to have been dismissed as of August
1, 1984 vis-a-vis the approval of his vacation leave which was to start August
1, 1984 up to August 31, 1984. The
approval is admitted by respondent firm in its letter to complainant dated
November 7, 1984. In respondent firms’
notice to Cruzette Motor Works dated September 5, 1984, respondent informed the
latter that complainant was no longer connected with the respondent firm
effective August 1, 1984. Also
in another letter dated September 5, 1984, addressed to Handog Marketing (Annex
‘A’ respondent’s position paper) respondent firm categorically stated:

‘We would like to inform you that MR. LUIS LOPEZ is no longer
connected with us since August 1, 1984 (underscoring ours)’

Complainant with these pieces of evidence unmistakably and clearly
show the intention of respondents to terminate complainant’s services at the
start of his vacation leave. Respondents cannot claim the indication of the date, August 1, 1984 was
a typograhical error considering that respondents stated the same date in two
separate letters addressed to its clients. . * *. Even granting that the effectivity of complainant’s termination
was September 4, 1985, after his leave expired, this we cannot give credence,
complainant having asserted vehemently that he returned to work immediately
upon the expiration of his leave but was not accepted anymore.”

The foregoing postulation, it would appear, made but scant
impression on the NLRC; for even as it upheld the Arbiter’s finding of illegal
dismissal, the Commission did not so much as allude to the notices in question,
even in passing, much less attribute any evidentiary significance to their
dating of Lopez’ severance on August 1,
1984 which, as was never denied, merely marked the start of the latter’s
approved 30-day leave of absence. Doubtless it saw what seemed to have been lost on the Arbiter — that if
it had been petitioner’s intention to dismiss Lopez without cause, it would not
have been so inept as to commit the gaffe of approving his leave of absence
and then charging him with abandoning his job at the very start of his approved
leave during which he had every excuse for not reporting for work.

But for its part, the NLRC does no better than the Arbiter in
sustaining the finding that Lopez was illegally dismissed on nothing more
concrete or factual than that it would be “surprising” and
“unnatural” for him to abandon his job of more than ten (10) years
unless he had been dismissed by his employer. Surprising or unnatural it might
be; the fact is that all the evidence there is unerringly points to the
conclusion that Lopez did voluntarily give up his employment with petitioner in
order to accept another that he must have considered more suitable or
better-paying. As already observed,
such evidence: that his name was
submitted for social security coverage as an employee of Asian Engine
Rebuilders, Inc. on August 27, 1984 when to all intents and purposes he was
still on vacation leave from his job with petitioner; his use and distribution of calling cards
indicating his connection with Asian Engine Rebuilders; his successful attempts
to wean clients and customers away from his old employer and to his new one,
being uncontroverted, proves petitioner’s claim of abandonment by default. Additionally, it shows breach of trust on
the part of Lopez, which is also just cause for his separation.

It was indubitably a grave abuse of discretion on the part of the
NLRC to ignore and disregard the cumulative effect and implications of evidence
thus allowed to go without denial or refutation and, in the face of such
evidence, to conclude that private respondent was illegally dismissed upon the
tenuous assumption that it would have been unusual for him to give up of his
own accord a job of ten years’ standing. Certiorari thus
clearly lies to correct such abuse, the respect and affirmance that findings of
fact of said Commission ordinarily merit notwithstanding.

WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision of the National Labor
Relations Commission is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Private respondent Luis Lopez having given just cause therefor,
petitioner could, as it did, terminate his employment, legally and without
incurring any liability whatsoever therefor. No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

Cruz, Feliciano, Griño-Aquino, and
Medialdea, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Original Record: Annex A, Complainant’s
Position Paper dated May 18, 1985; Annex 2, Respondent’s Position Paper dated
Dec. 30, 1985

^[2]
Id., Respondent’s verified Position Paper of Dec. 30, 1985,
Annex 3

^[3]
Id., id., p. 3 and Annex 3-A thereof

^[4]
Id., id., Annex 5: Affidavit
of Joaquin G. Bonifacio, SOLID’S General Manager

^[5]
Id., id., p. 4 and Annexes
6 and 7

^[6]
Id., id., Annex 4

^[7]
Id., Complainant’s Position Paper: Annex C

^[8]
Id., id., Annex D

^[9]
Rollo, pp. 28-32

^[10]
Original record, pp. 27-32