Tacloban Far East Marketing Corporation v. Court Of Appeals

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:

Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari is the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals dated August 23, 2007 in CA-G.R. SP No. 01027 which affirmed the Decision2 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) dated June 25, 2004 and its Resolution3 dated June 30, 2005 declaring petitioners guilty of illegal dismissal. Also assailed is the Court of Appeals' Resolution4 denying the motion for reconsideration. Sometime in 1989, petitioners hired private respondent Benjamin Sabulao as helper in its hardware business, then as a delivery truck driver from 1993 until May 12, 2001.

During the first week of May 2001, Sabulao alleged that he asked permission to be absent for five days due to his grandfather's death; that petitioner Francisco Romualdez granted his request but when he reported for work on May 12, 2001, he was informed not to work anymore. Thereafter, he returned to his hometown and engaged in the copra business to support the needs of his family. On August 10, 2001, Sabulao together with Mario Villanueva filed before the NLRC's Regional Arbitration Branch No. VIII, a complaint for illegal dismissal and money claims against petitioners.

Eventually, Mario Villanueva executed a Statement of Quitclaim and Release hence, his complaint was dismissed. Petitioners denied having illegally dismissed Sabulao and alleged that he abandoned his work. Allegedly, Sabulao had been a frequent absentee without notice since March and April of 2001 that petitioners would even send Edgar Enopia to fetch him to report for work.

During the first week of May 2001, petitioners learned that Sabulao was already engaged in the "Ukay-Ukay" business. On October 2, 2002, the Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision5 finding Sabulao to have abandoned his work.

At the same time, petitioners were ordered to pay Sabulao his salary differentials and service incentive leave pay. The other money claims were denied for failure to substantiate the same. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered- 1. Finding no illegal dismissal of complainant; 2. Ordering respondent to pay complainant: a. Salary differentials: May 11, 1998 to Dec. 31, 1999 (P153 - P130 = P23.00 x 511 days) = P11, 753.00 Jan. 2, 2000 - Oct. 31, 2000 (P163 - P160 = P3.00 x 259 days) = 777.00 Nov. 1, 2000 - Dec. 31, 2000 (P173 - P160 = P13.00 x 51 days) = 663.00 Jan. 2, 2001 - Apr. 30, 2001 = NIL May 1, 2001 - May 11, 2001 (P177.00 - P173 = P4.00 x 10 days) = 40.00