ZENAIDA ANGELES, PETITIONER, VS. LORDY FERNANDEZ, RESPONDENT.

Angeles versus Fernandez

The Case

This is a labor case in which Zenaida Angeles, the owner of a tailoring and dress shop in Baguio City called Bon Chic, assails the decision of the Court of Appeals which found that she illegally dismissed her employee, Lordy Fernandez, who had worked for her as secretary and all-around worker. The action began as a complaint for illegal dismissal with money claims filed by Fernandez before the labor arbiter. The case matters because it gathers in one decision the rules every examinee must know on three points: the reception of evidence for the first time on appeal in labor proceedings, the two-element test for abandonment of work, and the consequences of dismissal without the written notices required by due process.

Procedural History

Fernandez filed her complaint for illegal dismissal and for non-payment of premium pay for holidays and rest days, night shift differential, thirteenth month pay, and service incentive leave pay before the labor arbiter of the National Labor Relations Commission in Baguio City. The labor arbiter ruled that Fernandez did not abandon her job but was illegally dismissed, and ordered Angeles to pay backwages and separation pay. Angeles appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission, which reversed the labor arbiter. The Commission found credible Angeles's claim that Fernandez abandoned her job to elope with a younger man, that she was instigated by a certain Ferdinand Bucad to file money claims, and that her filing of the complaint twenty months after the alleged dismissal was consistent with abandonment. Fernandez elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals, which reinstated the labor arbiter's decision, holding that the Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in considering belated affidavits without giving Fernandez a chance to rebut them, and that abandonment was not established. The Court of Appeals denied Angeles's motion for reconsideration, so Angeles came to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari.

Facts

Lordy Fernandez worked as secretary and all-around worker from July 1992 to May 1998 at Bon Chic, a tailoring and dress shop in Baguio City owned by Zenaida Angeles. She claimed that in May 1998 Angeles dismissed her without cause and without due process, that she had committed no offense, and that she was neither notified of any reason nor administratively investigated before her dismissal. She alleged a monthly salary of six thousand pesos.

Angeles, for her part, denied the dismissal. She said she had hired Fernandez in 1992 on the recommendation of the latter's uncle, that she had treated Fernandez like a member of the family, giving her free board and lodging and a salary higher than the minimum wage, and that Fernandez abandoned her job in May 1998. Angeles added that after Fernandez left, she discovered that Bon Chic's money and records were missing, and that she had to close the shop in 1998.

Fernandez filed her complaint in January 2000, about twenty months after she stopped reporting for work. On appeal before the National Labor Relations Commission, Angeles submitted affidavits and unsworn statements of several persons, including allegations of nighttime visits by a certain Bong to Fernandez's room and of Fernandez having taken another job. The labor arbiter had ruled for Fernandez; the Commission reversed; the Court of Appeals reinstated the labor arbiter's ruling; and the case reached the Supreme Court.

Issues

• Whether or not the National Labor Relations Commission erred in accepting the employer's new evidence and affidavits presented for the first time on appeal.
• Whether or not respondent Fernandez abandoned her job.

Applicable Provisions

The decision applies the constitutional guarantee of due process in labor proceedings, which the Court describes through the settled rule that an opportunity to seek reconsideration of a ruling amounts to due process. The Court states the governing principle in these words:

It is well-settled that the NLRC is not precluded from receiving evidence, even for the first time on appeal, because technical rules of procedure are not binding in labor cases.

This rule allowed the Commission, in principle, to receive Angeles's affidavits, and it frames the first issue.

On abandonment, the Court lays down the two-element test in these words:

To constitute abandonment, two elements must concur: (1) the failure to report for work or absence without valid or justifiable reason; and (2) a clear intention to sever the employee-employer relationship.

This test governs the second issue, and the Court stresses that of the two elements, the second is the more determinative and must be shown by overt acts.

On the consequences of illegal dismissal, the Court states the rule of relief in these words:

An employee who is unjustly dismissed from work is entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges. She is also entitled to her full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from the time her compensation was withheld from her up to the time of her actual reinstatement.

This rule fixes what Fernandez may recover, subject to the qualification that reinstatement is no longer feasible because the shop closed.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the National Labor Relations Commission did not err in accepting the new evidence in principle, because technical rules of procedure are not binding in labor cases and the rule applies equally to the employee and the employer. Due process in labor cases requires only an opportunity to be heard, and Fernandez had that opportunity when she filed a motion for reconsideration of the Commission's first resolution and ventilated her side there. The Court nevertheless observed that the rule comes with a condition: delay in the submission of evidence should be clearly explained and should adequately prove the employer's allegation of the cause for termination. Angeles did not explain her belated submission of the affidavits, and her plea that they be admitted in the interest of truth, justice and fair play lacked merit.

On the second issue, the Court held that Fernandez did not abandon her job. Applying the two-element test, the Court found that Angeles failed to show any overt act manifesting a clear intention on Fernandez's part to sever the employment relationship. Even if considered, the belatedly submitted affidavits did not state that Fernandez abandoned her job; the alleged nighttime visits of Bong were not pertinent to abandonment; the allegation that Fernandez had taken another job was alleged but not proven; and Angeles's claim of earnest efforts to convince Fernandez to return contradicted her own position paper statement that she could not locate Fernandez. Fernandez's prayer for reinstatement manifested her intention to return. The Court also held that the twenty-month delay in filing the complaint was well within the four-year prescriptive period and had previously been treated as a non-issue. Finally, the Court agreed that Angeles failed to serve the required written notices, one containing the charge of abandonment to afford Fernandez the opportunity to be heard, and another stating the decision to terminate with clear reasons. Fernandez was therefore illegally dismissed.

Doctrine

First, the National Labor Relations Commission is not precluded from receiving evidence, even for the first time on appeal, because technical rules of procedure are not binding in labor cases; this applies equally to the employee and the employer. But the delay in submission must be clearly explained and must adequately prove the employer's allegation of the cause for termination. Second, due process in labor proceedings requires only an opportunity to be heard, and the filing of a motion for reconsideration is such an opportunity. Third, abandonment requires the concurrence of two elements: failure to report for work without valid or justifiable reason, and a clear intention to sever the employee-employer relationship, the second being the more determinative and required to be shown by overt acts. Fourth, the filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal within the prescriptive period, even after several months, does not by itself imply abandonment. Fifth, an illegally dismissed employee is entitled to reinstatement and full backwages, but where reinstatement is no longer feasible, separation pay in lieu of reinstatement is awarded.

Disposition

The petition was denied. Angeles was ordered to pay Fernandez full backwages, allowances and other benefits for four months, plus separation pay equivalent to one-half month pay for each of her six years of employment, with the labor arbiter directed to compute and execute the award, and costs against Angeles.

Remember This

Memorize the two-element test for abandonment, with the clear intention to sever the employment relationship as the more determinative element that must be shown by overt acts. Examiners like to use this case to test whether a long delay in filing a complaint implies abandonment, and whether evidence submitted for the first time on appeal in labor cases is admissible.