DEL MONTE PHILIPPINES, INC. PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL  LABOR  RELATIONS COMMISSION AND PROCESA ALSOLA, RESPONDENTS.

Del Monte Philippines versus National Labor Relations Commission and Procesa Alsola

The Case

This is a special civil action for certiorari brought by Del Monte Philippines, Incorporated against the National Labor Relations Commission and its employee, Procesa Alsola. The company asks the Supreme Court to set aside the Commission's ruling that it illegally dismissed Alsola, a packer paid by the hour who had served the company for twenty-two years. The case matters because it gathers in one decision the rules every labor lawyer must know: the employer's burden to prove a valid cause for dismissal, the respect owed to the factual findings of quasi-judicial agencies, the disciplined and graduated exercise of the employer's power to discipline, and the strict two-element test for abandonment of work.

Procedural History

Alsola filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the labor arbiter. The labor arbiter dismissed the complaint, holding that her dismissal was for a valid cause, namely gross and habitual neglect of duty due to repeated absences without permission. On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission reversed the labor arbiter. It held that Alsola was illegally dismissed because her repeated absences were justified by her worsening arthritis and related illness. Because reinstatement was not feasible given her physical condition, the Commission directed the company to pay her six months of backwages and separation pay of one month per year of service. The company moved for reconsideration, but the motion was denied. The company then came to the Supreme Court by petition for certiorari.

Facts

Procesa Alsola worked as a packer paid by the hour in the cannery of Del Monte Philippines in Bugo, Cagayan de Oro City, and had been in the company's employ since December 1972. The company had an Absence Without Permission policy. A worker who intended to be absent had to file an application for leave and wait for its approval before going on leave. One who violated the rule was declared absent without permission, and one who received a notice to explain such absence had to justify it. The penalties were graduated: oral reprimand for the first offense, written reprimand for the second, suspension of one to seven days for the third, eight to fifteen days for the fourth, sixteen to thirty days for the fifth, and dismissal from service for the sixth offense.

The company claimed that Alsola incurred fifty-seven days of absences without permission from 1993 to 1994, and that it sent her seventeen show-cause letters. Alsola did not appear before the personnel manager but submitted medical certificates from her doctor attesting that her absences were compelled by illness, including worsening arthritis and related illness. The company said these certificates came from private doctors not accredited by the company. It sent her a notice of hearing, but she did not appear. In March 1994, the company terminated her services for absence without permission.

On the evidence, however, the National Labor Relations Commission found that only two show-cause letters were actually sent to and received by Alsola: one dated June 30, 1993, requiring her to explain her absences from June 10 to 30, 1993, and one dated January 6, 1994, requiring her to explain her absences from November 5, 1993 to January 6, 1994. The other fifteen letters were ignored as self-serving for lack of proof that they were actually sent and received. The absences covered by the two proven letters were supported by medical certificates. The Court also noted that the administrative proceedings against Alsola began in January 1994 and coincided with the implementation of the company's retrenchment program.

Issues

• Whether or not the National Labor Relations Commission's finding that Alsola was illegally dismissed is supported by substantial evidence.
• Whether or not the company validly dismissed Alsola for gross and habitual neglect of duty due to repeated absences without permission.
• Whether or not Alsola abandoned her job.
• Whether or not Alsola is entitled to separation pay and backwages in lieu of reinstatement.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote a statutory text, but it applies the constitutional guarantee of security of tenure, which the Court invokes when it says that an employer's power to discipline its workers may not be exercised in an arbitrary manner as to erode that guarantee. The Court states the rule in these words:

The rule is that an employer's power to discipline its workers may not be exercised in an arbitrary manner as to erode the constitutional guarantee of security of tenure.

This guarantee is the measure against which the company's abrupt dismissal of a twenty-two-year employee, skipping the graduated penalties in its own rules, was weighed and found wanting.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court reiterated that findings of quasi-judicial agencies such as the National Labor Relations Commission are accorded respect and finality if amply supported by substantial evidence, and that in illegal dismissal cases the onus is on the employer to prove that there was a valid cause for its action. It found the Commission's finding of illegal dismissal backed by substantial evidence, principally because the company failed to establish the exact days Alsola was absent without permission. Only two show-cause letters were proven to have been sent and received, and the absences those letters covered were supported by medical certificates.

On the second issue, the Court held that the dismissal could not stand. Even granting previous absences without permission as far back as 1992, the circumstances of the March 1994 dismissal were highly suspect. Alsola had no previous disciplinary record in her twenty-two years of service. The company rules provided for a graduation of penalties, yet without initially penalizing her with reprimand or suspension for previous absences, she was outrightly dismissed. The company had allowed her to report back to work without sanction and had not required that her medical certificates be confirmed by its physicians, so that from her viewpoint everything was in order. The January 6, 1994 letter led her to believe she was being charged only for the period stated therein, and she complied as she had in the past. The Court found the company's sudden insistence on confirmation by company physicians a complete turn-around.

On the third issue, the Court disagreed that Alsola abandoned her job. Abandonment means the deliberate, unjustified refusal of an employee to resume employment, and the burden is on the employer to show a clear and deliberate intent to discontinue employment. The Court laid down the test in these words:

For abandonment to be a valid ground for dismissal, two (2) elements must be proved: the intention of an employee to abandon, coupled with an overt act from which it may be inferred that the employee has no more intent to resume his work.

Neither element was established. Alsola always reported for work after her absences, had an unblemished record over twenty-two years, and her filing of an illegal dismissal case contradicted any claim of abandonment. The timing of the proceedings against her, coinciding with the retrenchment program, suggested the dismissal was part of a scheme to reduce the work force.

On the fourth issue, the Court agreed with the Commission that reinstatement was not feasible given Alsola's worsening arthritis, and that prudence and fair play dictated an award of separation pay with backwages in lieu of reinstatement.

Doctrine

First, in illegal dismissal cases the burden of proof rests on the employer to show a valid cause for the dismissal. Second, the factual findings of quasi-judicial agencies such as the National Labor Relations Commission are accorded respect and finality when amply supported by substantial evidence. Third, the employer's power to discipline may not be exercised arbitrarily so as to erode the constitutional guarantee of security of tenure; where company rules prescribe graduated penalties, the employer must observe them, and an abrupt dismissal that skips reprimand and suspension is suspect. Fourth, abandonment requires proof of two elements, the intention to abandon and an overt act showing no intent to resume work, and the filing of an illegal dismissal case negates abandonment. Fifth, where reinstatement is not feasible because of the employee's physical condition, separation pay and backwages may be awarded in lieu of reinstatement.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission in its entirety, with costs against Del Monte Philippines, Incorporated, and Alsola was upheld as illegally dismissed and entitled to backwages and separation pay.

Remember This

Memorize the line that the employer's power to discipline may not be exercised in an arbitrary manner as to erode the constitutional guarantee of security of tenure, and the two-element test for abandonment. Examiners use this case for the employer's burden of proof in illegal dismissal, the respect given to the National Labor Relations Commission's factual findings, the graduated-penalty rule in company handbooks, and abandonment negated by the filing of a complaint.