ROMAN PEÑAFLOR, PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND CALTRANS, RESPONDENTS.

This is an appeal by Roman Peñaflor from an undated decision of the National
Labor Relations Commission, Third Division, promulgated in Baguio City.

The facts of the case are the following:

Petitioner Roman Peñaflor was the driver of a passenger jeepney which was
owned by the respondent Caltrans. He filed a complaint against his employer with
the Arbitration Branch of the Ministry of Labor and Employment at Tuguegarao,
Cagayan. He alleged illegal deductions, non-payment of living allowance and
other benefits under the Labor Code, and illegal dismissal.

Petitioner had been employed as driver by the private respondent since July
1954. On April 7, 1979, petitioner was dismissed by his employer – a fact
admitted by both parties. The employer claims that the dismissal was for a just
cause because petitioner had abandoned his work. On the other hand, petitioner
denies abandonment. He claims that he did not work beginning April 7, 1979,
because his employer failed to produce a conductor to work with him.

The Labor Arbiter held that the claim of Caltrans to the effect that Peñaflor
abandoned his work was not substantially established and that Caltrans had
violated the rules on clearance for dismissal of an employee. He gave the
following award:

“IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING FACTS, respondent is hereby ordered to pay
complainant within 10 days from receipt hereof the amounts of THREE THOUSAND
SEVEN HUNDRED FIFTY PESOS (P3,750.00), as separation pay equivalent to half
month pay for every year of service from July 1954 to April 7, 1979, considering
that complainant could not now be reinstated to his former position as driver
with the respondent for he was already working with another person, and TWO
HUNDRED FORTY SIX PESOS (P246.00), representing his back emergency cost of
living allowance covering the period from April 24, 1976 to December 31, 1976
totalling to THREE THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED NINETY SIX PESOS (P3,996.00).

“Complainant’s claim for emergency cost of living allowance before April 24,
1976 was already prescribed.”

Caltrans appealed the decision. It disclaimed any liability and accordingly
asked that the decision be set aside. Peñaflor also appealed the decision
alleging that the Labor Arbiter failed to award him 13th month pay from 1976 to
1979; living allowance from January, 1977 to April 7, 1979; and reimbursement
for illegal deductions from his salaries.

The National Labor Relations Commission in an undated decision promulgated in
Baguio City by the Third Division held “that indeed complainant [Peñaflor]
abandoned his job” and that there is “no convincing proof in the records that
would support the other claims of complainant except what was awarded to him as
emergency living allowance from April 24, 1975 to December 31, 1976.”
Accordingly, the NLRC gave the following judgment:

“WHEREFORE, the Decision dated August 27, 1980 is hereby Modified in the
following tenor:

“Complainant is declared to have abandoned his job and, therefore, not
entitled to separation pay. The award of living allowance to complainant from
April 24, 1976 to December 31, 1976 is hereby retained.”

As aforesaid, Peñaflor has appealed the decision of the NLRC. He claims that
he did not abandon his work so that the correct decision is that of the Labor
Arbiter and not that of the NLRC.

The only issue in this appeal is whether or not petitioner abandoned his
work.

We find for the petitioner. We hold that petitioner did not abandon his work
and that petitioner did not work because of a justifiable reason, which is
Caltrans’ failure to provide him with a conductor. This fact was admitted by
Caltrans for, according to the Labor arbiter, “respondent averred that there was
available conductor but the said conductor disliked herein complainant.”
Moreover, Caltrans falsified a material fact in its application for clearance to
terminate petitioner’s employment filed on April 10, 1979, by stating as the
cause, “abandonment of work from February, 1979” when as a matter of fact he
worked that month and also the following month until he was illegally
dismissed.

We cannot believe that petitioner who had worked for the private respondent
for 25 years would simply walk away from his job unmindful of the consequences
of his act, i.e., forfeiture of his accrued employment benefits. As demonstrated
such benefits are substantial and for a lowly paid jeepney driver they mean a
lot.

WHEREFORE, the petition is granted; the undated decision of
the National Labor Relations Commission is hereby set aside and that of the
Labor Arbiter is reinstated. Costs against the private respondent.

SO ORDERED.

Makasiar (Chairman), Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, De Castro,
and Escolin, JJ., concur.