G.R. No. 115395 -

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision is hereby set aside and a new one is entered dismissing the complaint for lack of merit. However, respondents [petitioner herein] are ordered to pay complainant [private respondent herein] her salaries from the date of the filing of the instant appeal on April 10, 1992 up to the date of the promulgation of this Resolution, pursuant to Art. 223 of the Labor Code, as amended. Petitioners also challenge the NLRCs Resolution dated February 7, 1994 which denied their subsequent motion for reconsideration, for lack of merit. The labor arbiters decision, which the NLRC set aside, in NLRC NCR Case NO. 00-02-01060-91 dated March 10, 1992 disposed as follows: [4] WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing considerations, judgment is hereby rendered declaring the dismissal of complainant improper and unjust. Accordingly, respondent is hereby ordered to pay the complainant limited backwages and other benefits for six (6) months in the amount of P 18,252.00. Considering however the physical condition of the complainant that was the real cause of her absences and tardiness, it would be to their mutual advantage and most importantly to the physical health welfare of complainant that was the real cause of her absences and tardiness, it would be to their mutual advantage and most importantly to the physical and health welfare of complainant that she is separated from the service with separation benefits equivalent to ½ month basic salary for every year of service, a fraction of six months equivalent to one year in the amount of P 22,815.00. The charge of unfair labor practice is hereby denied for lack of legal basis. Individual respondent Celia Buenconsejo is hereby absolved of any liability for she acted only in her official capacity. Other claims are denied for lack of merit. The Facts Labor Arbiter Daniel C. Cueto recited the facts of this case as follow: [5] Complainant is a sewer who started working with respondent in November 1975. She was dismissed for abandonment on February 11, 1991. At the time of her dismissal, she was receiving a salary of P 117.00 per day of work. She claimed that while it is true that she was absent from November 30, 1990 up to December 11, 1990, her dismissal on ground of abandonment is not consonance with law considering that her absences was [sic] attributable to chronic ashmatic [sic] bronchitis which she contacted since early 1990 yet. She presented as evidence the medical certificate dated March 4, 1991 attesting for [sic] her medical treatment covering the period January 1990 to May 28, 1990. She claims that her failure to report for work for 11 days was due to sickness wherein respondents were notified by her through the telephone. Complainant argued that she did not abandon her job and that is evidenced by her immediate filing of instant complaint on February 8, 1991. Her 16 years of service, according to complainant, should have been considered by respondents before she was dismissed. She pray