STA. CATALINA COLLEGE VS NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISION

STA. CATALINA COLLEGE

VS

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISION
416 SCRA 233 (2003)

For a valid finding of abandonment, two factors must be present:

(1) the failure to report for work, or absence without valid or justifiable reason; and

(2) a clear intention to sever employer-employee relationship, with the second element as the more determinative factor, being manifested by some overt acts.

Hilaria Tercero (Tercero) was hired as an elementary school teacher at the Sta. Catalina College (Sta. Catalina) in June 1955. Fifteen years thereafter, on account of the illness of her mother, she applied for and was granted a one year leave of absence without pay. After the expiration of her leave of absence, she had not been heard from by petitioner school. In 1982, she applied anew at petitioner school which hired her. On March 1997, Hilaria was awarded a Plaque of Appreciation for thirty years of service and a gratuity pay. On May 1997, she reached the compulsory retirement age of 65. Tercero’s retirement benefits were computed on the basis of fifteen years of service from 1982 to 1997 and her service from 1955 to 1970 was excluded in the computation. Sta. Catalina asserted that she had, in 1971, abandoned her employment. From the retirement benefits was deducted the amount representing reimbursement of the employer’s contribution to her retirement benefits under the Private Education Retirement Annuity Association (PERAA) which Tercero had already received. Deducted too was the gratuity pay which was given to her.

Tercero filed a complaint before the NLRC Regional Arbitration, against Sta. Catalina for non-payment of retirement benefits. By Decision of October 30, 1998 , Labor Arbiter Pedro C. Ramos ruled in favor of the petitioner school. On appeal, however, the NLRC, set aside the Labor Arbiter’s decision.

Sta. Catalina then brought the case on certiorari to the CA. The appellate court however, dismissed the petition, holding that Sta. Catalina failed to prove that Tercero had abandoned her position in 1970, as Sta. Catalina even gave her a Plaque of Appreciation for thirty years of service ―precisely because of her thirty year continuous service,‖ and that Sta. Catalina never sent notice to her dismissing her, hence, the employer-employee relationship was not severed and, therefore, her services for Sta. Catalina during the period from 1955-1970 should be credited in the computation of her retirement benefits

ISSUE:
Whether or not Tercero is entitled to the retirement benefits differential computed by the NLRC based on her 29 years of service when she merely rendered 15 continuous years of service prior to her retirement

HELD:
The Court is not unmindful of Tercero’s rendition of a total of thirty years of teaching in Sta. Catalina College and should be accorded ample support in her twilight years. Sta. Catalina in fact acknowledges her dedicated service to its students. She can, however, only be awarded with what she is rightfully entitled to under the law.

As a general rule, the factual findings and conclusion of quasi-judicial agencies such as the NLRC are, on appeal, accorded great weight and respect and even finality as long as they are supported by substantial evidence or that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable man might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. Where as in the present case, the findings of the NLRC contradict those of the Labor Arbiter, the Court must of necessity examine the records and the evidence presented to determine which finding should be preferred as more conformable with evidentiary facts.

For a valid finding of abandonment, two factors must be present:

(1) the failure to report for work, or absence without valid or justifiable reason; and

(2) a clear intention to sever employer-employee relationship, with the second element as the more determinative factor, being manifested by some overt acts.

To prove abandonment, the employer must show that the employee deliberately and unjustifiably refused to resume his employment without any intention of returning.
Abandonment of work being a just cause for terminating the services of Hilaria, petitioner school was under no obligation to serve a written notice to her.

Share this:

Leave a Reply