G.R. No. 148837 - RODOLFO GABUAY, WILLIAM LACAMBRA, REYNANTE LACAMBRA, ROLANDO VICENTE AND TOMACITO TABULI, VS. OVERSEA PAPER SUPPLY, INC. AND/OR TAN LIAN SENG.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered ordering the DISMISSAL of the complaint for lack of merit. Respondent Oversea Paper Supply Corporation ( sic ) is, however, ordered to pay complainants pro-rata 13th month pay for 1999. [18] Aggrieved, the petitioners appealed to the NLRC, [19] which affirmed the decision of the Labor Arbiter with modification on September 29, 2000. The respondents were ordered to grant to the petitioners financial assistance equivalent to separation pay at one-half (1/2) month per year of service. Thus: WHEREFORE, the Decision dated 18 November 1999 is MODIFIED by directing respondents to grant complainants financial assistance equivalent to separation pay at one-half month (1/2) per year ( sic ) service. [20] The NLRC stated that the award of financial assistance was based on humanitarian reasons and the length of service of the petitioners, which ranged from ten (10) to twenty (20) years. [21] Dissatisfied, the respondents filed a partial motion for reconsideration of the decision. [22] The said motion was denied by the NLRC in a Resolution dated November 29, 2000. [23] The respondents filed a petition for certiorari before the CA, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 62613. [24] They alleged that the NLRC acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it ordered the award of financial assistance to the petitioners. [25] However, in its Decision dated June 29, 2001, the CA granted the petition and deleted the award of financial assistance: WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. The assailed Decision dated September 29, 2000 and the Resolution dated November 29, 2000, of the National Labor Relations Commission are hereby SET ASIDE. The decision of the Labor Arbiter dated November 18, 1999 is REINSTATED. [26] The Present Petition The petitioners filed the instant petition, alleging that the CA erred in ruling that they were not illegally dismissed. They argue that the filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal was inconsistent with the defense of abandonment. Considering that they had been in the respondent corporations employ for the last twenty (20) years, they would not just abandon their jobs for no reason. The petitioners asseverate that the order of the NLRC awarding separation pay was not issued with grave abuse of discretion, and invoke the provisions of the Constitution regarding the protection of labor. In their comment, the respondents counter that the petition should be dismissed for being a mere pro forma pleading. They emphasize that the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC and the CA, found that the petitioners were not illegally dismissed. They allege that the petitioners refusal to return to work, after receiving notice requiring them to do so, and to explain in writing (a) their failure to submit a copy of their updated bio-data and (b) their unauthorized leave of absence were equivalent to abandonment of work. The respondents insist that the deletion of the award for separation pay was p