GEORGE R. PALENCIA, PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ABERDEEN COURT INC., AND RICARDO NG, RESPONDENTS.

This petition for certiorari originated from a complaint
filed by petitioner George R. Palencia
against the Aberdeen Court, Inc. for illegal dismissal and the recovery of specified money claims.  After direct and
cross examination of the complainant
and his witnesses before the Labor Arbiter the parties agreed to forego further
presentation of other testimonial evidence. 
Instead they filed memoranda
and supplemental position
papers on the basis of which the
case was submitted for resolution.  Labor
Arbiter Manuel R. Caday found for the complainant,
the dispositive
part of his decision reads:

PREMISES CONSIDERED, judgment is hereby
rendered declaring the respondents guilty of illegally dismissing the
complainant and ordering them to reinstate him to his former position with full
backwages from the date of his dismissal on March 2, 1984, until actually
reinstated without loss of seniority rights and other rights granted by law.

The claim for illegal deduction, overtime pay, premium pay for
holiday and rest day, underpayment of 13th month pay, unpaid wages and
commission and sick leave pay, is hereby dismissed for lack of merit.

There being no clear and sufficient evidence of moral damages, the
same must also be dismissed for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

On appeal the Second Division of the National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC) composed of Ricardo C. Castro as Presiding Commissioner with
Commissioners Cecilio T. Seno and Federico O. Borromeo as members, set aside the Labor Arbiter’s award of
backwages, but upheld his order of reinstatement,
thus:

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby Set Aside and a new one entered ordering
complainant to report for work within ten (10) days from receipt hereof and for
the respondents to accept him back without
loss of seniority rights and without backwages.

SO ORDERED.

Motion for reconsideration of the NLRC
decision was sought on the following grounds:

A. THAT WITH DUE RESPECT TO THE HONORABLE COMMISSION MATERIAL AND
PERTINENT FACTS COULD HAVE BEEN OVERLOOKED.

B.THAT THE PRETENSION OF RESPONDENT APPELLANT THAT HEREIN
COMPLAINANT APPELLEE WAS NOT DISMISSED DESERVE SCANT CONSIDERATION.

C.THAT COMPLAINANT APPELLEE IS ENTITLED TO FULL BACKWAGES AND
REINSTATEMENT AND BENEFITS UNDER THE LAW, AS A MATTER OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

Upon denial, the present petition for certiorari
was filed alleging that the NLRC had committed grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack of jurisdiction in reversing the
findings and conclusions of the labor arbiter and that there is no plain,
speedy, and adequate remedy available under the ordinary course of law.  The
following two errors are assigned:

IN FLAGRANTLY AND GRAVELY FAILING TO APPLY
PETITIONER’S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION, TO DUE-PROCESS,
AND PERTINENT PROVISIONS OF THE LABOR CODE;

IN GROSSLY AND SERIOUSLY DISREGARDING,
MISAPPRECIATING, AND MISCONCEIVING PALPABLY
AND MANIFESTLY CLEAR EXISTING FACTS ON RECORD TO PETITIONER’S GRAVE DETRIMENT.

The antecedent facts are as follows:  Petitioner Palencia,
an employee of Aberdeen Court, Inc. was assigned as a marketer and/or
collector.  On February 23, 1984 after a trip to Baguio to buy vegetables for the
respondent, and after the cargo had been unloaded from the company van, a plastic bag containing three (3)
pieces of Baguio
pechay was seen on the driver’s seat.  The next day according to petitioner Palencia, he underwent a series of investigations (Rollo p. 58) which started at 11:00
a.m.  An investigator of the Quezon City police took the plastic bag
containing the vegetables and invited Palencia
to the police station.  Palencia apprised
of his constitutional rights invoked his right to counsel and declined to give any statement (Rollo p.
92).  He was not released until about
midnight of that day.  The report on the police investigation of
Attempted Qualified Theft was prepared on the same date addressed to the City
Fiscal.

From February 25 to March
1, 1984 Palencia
did not report for work.  According to
him he went under treatment for gastric ulcers. 
On March 2, 1984 he
went back to Aberdeen Court
but was not then admitted.  He was asked
to return the following day, according to the company because it wanted to
consult its lawyer.  Palencia did not come back.  Instead on March 6, 1984 he filed the complaint for illegal
dismissal.

The principal issue in the
case before the labor arbiter, on appeal to the NLRC and in the present
petition for certiorari is:  Was Palencia dismissed or did he abandon his work?

Palencia
insists that he was dismissed and the labor arbiter so found.  The NLRC on review held otherwise.

The question of whether or not evidence adduced establishes
dismissal or abandonment raises a factual issue.  So does the first error assigned in this
petition i.e., that the NLRC “flagrantly and gravely failing (failed) to
apply petitioner’s constitutional right against self-incrimination, to due-process, and pertinent provisions of
the Labor Code”.  Notwithstanding
its being couched in terms which appear to raise a question of law, it involves
a careful examination of facts to determine if there is basis for the assertion
that these constitutional rights had been disregarded.  There is neither averment nor evidence that at any point in the
proceedings Palencia
was ever compelled to be a
witness against himself.  When at the
police investigation he invoked the right to counsel and to the right against
self-incrimination, the fact was made
of record (Rollo
p. 92).  The assertion that the
right to due process has been violated is even more tenuous.  Palencia’s complaint
was given due course, he was afforded every opportunity to be heard, his
Memoranda and other manifestations were taken into account by the labor arbiter
and the NLRC acting under provisions of the Labor Code.

Following a long
line of decisions this Court has consistently declined to disturb the findings
of fact to the then Court of
Industrial Relations whose functions the NLRC now performs.  (Pambusco
Employees’ Union Inc. v. Court of Industrial Relations, 68 Phil. 591 (1939);
Manila Electric Co. v. National Labor
Union, 70 Phil. 617 (1940); San Carlos Milling Co. v. Court of Industrial
Relations, 111 Phil. 323 (1961),
1 SCRA 734; Philippine Educational Institution v. MLQSEA Faculty Assn., 135
Phil. 282 (1968), 26 SCRA 272; University of Pangasinan
Faculty Union v. University of Pangasinan and NLRC,
G.R. No. L-63122, February 20,
1984; 127 SCRA 691].  The
findings of fact are conclusive and will not be disturbed in the absence of a
showing that there has been grave abuse of discretion (Philippine Educational
Institution v. MLQSEA Faculty Association, 26 SCRA 272, 276] and there being no
indication that the findings are unsubstantiated by evidence (University
of Pangasinan Faculty Union v. University of Pangasinan and NLRC, G.R. No. 63122, February 20, 1984, 127
SCRA 694, 704].

In the present case the NLRC committed no grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in setting aside the decision of
the labor arbiter and entering a new one ordering the complainant to report for
work within ten (10) days from receipt (hereof) and for the respondents to
accept him back without loss of seniority rights
and without backwages.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

Fernan,
(Chairman), Gutierrez, Jr., Feliciano, and
Bidin, JJ., concur.