G.R. No. 172670 - RBC CABLE MASTER SYSTEM AND/OR EVELYN CINENSE, VS. MARCIAL BALUYOT. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, finding merit in the appeal, the decision dated November 5, 2002 is hereby reversed and set aside. A new judgment is entered finding respondents to have illegally dismissed complainant from his employment. Accordingly, respondents are hereby ordered to pay complainant his backwages from March 1, 2001 to November 5, 2002, the date of the decision of the labor arbiter. In addition complainant is entitled to separation pay in lieu of reinstatement equivalent to one-half (1/2) pay for every year of service from March 1996 to March 2001 based on his wage rate of P4,200. (Rollo, pp. 23-24) [4] As aforestated, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the NLRC with the modification that the award of separation pay be computed at one (1) month pay for every year of service reckoned from March 1, 2001 up to finality of its decision as follows: WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant Petition for Certiorari is DENIED and the assailed Decision of the National Labor Relations Commission dated December 10, 2003 is hereby AFFIRMED with modification that the award of separation pay be computed at one (1) month pay for every year of service reckoned from March 1, 2001 up to the finality of this decision. [5] A motion for reconsideration of the Court of Appeals' decision was filed but the same was denied in a Resolution [6] dated April 10, 2006. Hence, this Petition, raising the following grounds: The Court of Appeals abused its discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in impliedly acknowledging that the NLRC can pass upon and resolve an un-litigated issue (abandonment) by making use of the same un-litigated issue to justify its finding of illegal dismissal. The Court of Appeals abused its discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in ruling that there was no abandonment even if it had no factual or legal basis for such finding. The Court of Appeals abused its discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in ruling that private respondent was illegally dismissed despite overwhelming evidence of acts of dishonesty such as misappropriation of collections, falsification of documents to cover up said misappropriation, theft of company funds and property as well as abandonment - all Just Causes for Dismissal under Article 282 of the Labor Code of the Philippines as amended. The Court of Appeals abused its discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in ruling that the acts of dishonesty and other infractions were already condoned by petitioner since private respondent was already suspended and was even required to report back to work after his suspension. The Court of Appeals abused its discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in affirming the NLRC's award of Backwages and Separation Pay. [7] The petition is unmeritorious. There are two key issues in this case: (1) whether the issue of abandonment cannot be passed upon by the NLRC for not being raised on appeal; and (2) on the basis of