Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 111515 July 14, 1995
JACKSON BUILDING CONDOMINIUM CORPORATION an!o" RA#UL RE$UESTO,
petitioners,
vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION an %ERDINAND GUMOGDA,
respondents.
R S O ! " T I O N

$UIASON, J.:
This is a petition for certiorari under Rule #$ of the Revised Rules of %ourt to set aside
the Decision of National !abor Relations %o&&ission 'N!R%(, )hich affir&ed the
Decision of the !abor *rbiter dated October +,, -../. The latter decision ordered
petitioners to reinstate private respondent and to pa0 hi& bac1 )a2es, differential pa0,
thirteenth3&onth pa0 and service3incentive leave pa0 for -..-.
On Nove&ber //, -.4., private respondent )as e&plo0ed as a 5anitor b0 petitioner )ith
a &onthl0 salar0 of P/,+6,.,, or a dail0 )a2e of P.,.,,.
On Nove&ber -$, -../, private respondent filed a 6$3da0 leave of absence fro&
Nove&ber -$, -..- to Dece&ber /., -..- to under2o an appendecto&0, )hich )ould
necessitate co&plete bed rest for about thirt0 da0s fro& the date of operation as sho)n
b0 his &edical certificate '*nne7 8%3l8, Rollo, p. /4(. This )as 2ranted b0 petitioner.
On 9anuar0 +, -../, private respondent infor&ed petitioner Ra:ul Re;uesto, president
of petitioner corporation, that he )as ph0sicall0 fit to assu&e his )or1. <o)ever,
petitioners refused to accept hi& bac1 contendin2 that he had abandoned his )or1.
On March /6, -../, private respondent filed )ith the !abor *rbiter a co&plaint a2ainst
petitioners for ille2al dis&issal, underpa0&ent of )a2es and non3pa0&ent of thirteenth3
&onth pa0 and service3incentive leave pa0 '*nne7 8%8, Rollo, pp. /,3/#(.
On 9ul0 -/, -../, petitioners sub&itted their position paper )herein the0 alle2ed that
private respondent )as not dis&issed but )as &erel0 advised to rest for health reasons
until he could procure a &edical certificate attestin2 that he )as fit to )or1. The0 further
alle2ed that private respondent failed to return to his )or1place or to sub&it the re;uired
&edical certificate.
On October +,, -../, the !abor *rbiter rendered a decision in favor of private
respondent.
Petitioners then appealed to N!R%, alle2in2 that the !abor *rbiter co&&itted 2rave
abuse of discretion. .<o)ever, N!R% affir&ed in toto the decision of the !abor *rbiter. *
subse;uent &otion for reconsideration )as denied.
II
The issues for consideration of this %ourt are )hether private respondent abandoned
his )or1 and )hether petitioners are liable for the pa0&ent of private respondent=s bac1
)a2es, differential pa0, thirteenth3&onth pa0 and service3incentive leave pa0 for -..-.
III
Petitioners contend that private respondent )as still )ea1 )hen he reported bac1 for
)or1 and the0 had to as1 hi& to secure a &edical clearance. The0 clai& that he failed
to sub&it one or to report for )or1> hence the0 considered hi& as havin2 abandoned his
)or1.
Petitioners raise ;uestions of fact )hich have alread0 been passed upon b0 the !abor
*rbiter and N!R%. This %ourt does not disturb the findin2s of fact of ad&inistrative
a2encies )hen supported b0 substantial evidence '?0eth3Suaco !aboratories, Inc. v.
National !abor Relations %o&&ission, /-. S%R* +$# @-..+A(.
For abandon&ent to be a valid 2round for dis&issal, t)o re;uisites &ust be
co&presentB the intention b0 an e&plo0ee to abandon coupled )ith an overt act fro&
)hich it &a0 be inferred that the e&plo0ee had no &ore intention to resu&e his )or1
'People=s Securit0, Inc. v. National !abor Relations %o&&ission, //# S%R* -6# @-..+A(.
In the instant case, the said re;uisites are not present.
1
*s found b0 the !abor *rbiter, private respondent=s ph0sician advised hi& to rest for +,
da0s before reportin2 bac1 for )or1 in order to recuperate. Private respondent heeded
this advise and even e7ceeded the nu&ber of da0s reco&&ended b0 his doctor for his
recuperation. In fact, he reported bac1 for )or1 $, da0s after his operation. This )ould
clearl0 sho) that private respondent )as read0 to assu&e his responsibilities
considerin2 that he had full0 recovered fro& the operation. Further&ore, the filin2 of a
co&plaint for ille2al dis&issal b0 private respondent is inconsistent )ith the alle2ation of
petitioners that he had abandoned his 5ob. Surel0, an e&plo0ee=s posture )ill be illo2ical
if he abandons his )or1 and then i&&ediatel0 files an action for his reinstate&ent
'Re&erco Car&ents Manufacturin2 v. Minister of !abor and &plo0&ent, -+$ S%R*
-#D @-.4$A(.
Petitioners also ur2ed that private respondent is not entitled to an0 re&uneration durin2
the period that he did not report for )or1 under the principle of 8a fair da0=s )or1 for a
fair da0=s pa0.8
The la) on the &atter refutes this le2al challen2e of petitioners.
Section +- of R.*. No. #D-$ )hich a&ended *rticle /D. of the !abor %ode of the
Philippines provides that 8an e&plo0ee )ho is un5ustl0 dis&issed fro& )or1 shall be
entitled to reinstate&ent )ithout loss of seniorit0 ri2hts and other privile2es )ithout loss
of seniorit0 ri2hts and other privile2es and to his full bac1 )a2es, inclusive of
allo)ances, and to his other benefits or their &onetar0 e;uivalent co&puted fro& the
ti&e his co&pensation )as )ithheld fro& hi& up to the ti&e of his actual
reinstate&ent.8
The a)ard of bac1 )a2es b0 N!R% to private respondent )as predicated on the 2round
that he )as ille2all0 dis&issed and not on his failure to report for )or1 '!losa3Tan v.
Silahis International <otel, -4- S%R* D+4 @-..,A(.
Private respondent is li1e)ise entitled to the thirteenth3&onth pa0. Presidential Decree
No. 4$-, as a&ended b0 Me&orandu& Order No. /4, provides that e&plo0ees are
entitled to the thirteenth3&onth pa0 benefit re2ardless of their desi2nation and
irrespective of the &ethod b0 )hich their )a2es are paid.
?<RFOR, the %ourt Resolved to DISMISS the petition.
SO ORDRD.
Padilla, Davide, Jr., Bellosillo and Kapunan, JJ., concur.
2