G.R. No. 158095 - JOEL CUSTODIO MACAHILIG, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ARACELI DE JESUS BOUTIQUE AND/OR ARACELI S. DE JESUS.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered declaring the dismissal of the complainant illegal. Respondents are ordered to pay complainant the following: 1. Separation pay P 32,000.00 2. Backwages 11,093.33 3. 13 th Month pay 9,565.33 4. Service Incentive Leave Pay not entitled Total P 52,658.66 All other claims are denied for lack of merit. [7] In finding that petitioner was illegally dismissed, the LA found unmeritorious private respondent's claim that after the lapse of petitioner's one month leave without pay, the latter failed or refused to return to work and thus was guilty of abandonment. The LA found that petitioner never intended to abandon his work since, during the time he was on vacation leave, he had asked private respondent when he would report for work but was finally told on February 8, 2001 that his service was no longer needed; and that the filing of the case negated petitioner's charge of abandonment. The LA held that since petitioner was illegally dismissed, he should be reinstated to his former position, but that because petitioner opted for a separation pay, the payment of his backwages and separation pay of one month for every year of service was in order; and considering that the boutique shop was registered only on December 23, 1996, and therefore, petitioner officially started working in the boutique on January 7, 1997, his separation pay must start from the year 1997, and his backwages from the date of his dismissal, i.e ., February 8, 2001, both up to the promulgation of the decision. Private respondent appealed to the NLRC. On February 21, 2002, the NLRC rendered its Resolution [8] affirming with modification the decision of the LA, the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, finding no cogent reason to modify, alter, much less reverse the decision appealed from, the same is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the award of separation pay should be reduced to P 16,000.00 covering the period of almost 5 years of service, which is from January 7, 1997 to September 14, 2001 only. [9] Private respondent's Motion for Reconsideration was denied in an Order [10] dated June 28, 2002. Private respondent filed a Petition for Certiorari with prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order, with the CA alleging grave abuse of discretion committed by the NLRC. On February 27, 2003, the CA rendered its assailed Decision granting the petition and reversing the NLRC. The CA found no indication that petitioner was terminated from his employment, since private respondent had not shown any overt act that she had dismissed petitioner, nor was there any hint that she held a personal grudge against him; that as regards non-payment of compensation, the DOLE Inspection Report stated that no violation was committed by private respondent; that absent any showing of dubiety in the veracity of the contents of the affidavits and of the DOLE Inspection Report, the public respondents should have taken them into cons