Valdez v. National Labor Relations Commission

REGALADO, J.:

This special civil action for certiorari challenges the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), promulgated on December 13, 1995, dismissing petitioner's complaint and thereby reversing the decision of the Labor Arbiter dated September 15, 1994, as well as the former's resolution of March 15, 1996 which denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration.1 Auspiciously, there is no substantial dispute on the antecedents of this case. Sometime in December, 1986, petitioner was hired by private respondent as a bus driver on commission basis, with an average earning of P6,000.00 a month. On February 28, 1993, the airconditioning unit of the bus which petitioner was driving suffered a mechanical breakdown.

Respondent company told him to wait until the airconditioning unit was repaired. Meanwhile, no other bus was assigned to petitioner to keep him gainfully employed. Thereafter, petitioner continued reporting to his employer's office for work, only to find out each time that the airconditioning unit had not been repaired.

Several months elapsed but he was never called by respondent company to report for work. Later, petitioner found out that the bus formerly driven by him was plying an assigned route as an ordinary bus, with a newly-hired driver. On June 15, 1993, petitioner filed a complaint against private respondent for illegal dismissal, with money claims for labor standard benefits, and for reimbursement of his bond and tire deposit.ℒαwρhi৷ He claimed that the reason why respondent company did not allow him to drive again was due to his refusal to sign an undated company-prepared resignation letter and a blank affidavit of quitclaim and release.

Private respondent, on the other hand, admitted that it told petitioner to wait until the airconditioning unit of the bus was repaired. However, private respondent alleged that after the bus driven by the petitioner broke down due to his fault and negligence, the latter did not report for work. He supposedly informed the management later that he was voluntarily resigning from his employment in order to supervise the construction of his house.

Consequent to his resignation, petitioner demanded the return of his cash bond and tire deposit. Respondent company required him to secure the necessary management clearance and other pertinent papers relative to his resignation. Instead of complying with those requirements, petitioner filed the instant complaint.

On September 15, 1994, the Labor Arbiter rendered a decision with the following dispositive portion:

WHEREFORE, with all the foregoing considerations, judgment is hereby rendered declaring complainant illegally dismissed and respondent NELBUSCO, INC. is hereby ordered to pay complainant as follows: P 11,000.00 - Full backwages 36,000.00 - Separation pay in lieu of reinstatement 9,000.00 - Refund of cash bond and tire deposit