G.R. No. 119420 February 27, 1998
IRIGA TELEPHONE CO., INC., petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, HONORABLE DOMINADOR MEDROSO, JR. and INOCENCIO PRAXIDES, respondents.

FACTS

Inocencio Praxides was employed by Iriga Telephone Company (ITELCO) as a collector-technician in 1974. On March 21, 1989, Praxides complained to the company secretary about incorrect entries on his BIR Form 1701-B1, reflecting larger salaries and bonuses than he actually received in 1988. On April 1, 1989, he was directed to confer with Atty. Santiago Ortega, ITELCO’s president and general manager. During the conference, after discussing Praxides’ complaints, Atty. Ortega allegedly kicked Praxides, subjected him to verbal abuse, and terminated him due to his propensity to complain. Praxides reported the incident to the police and sought medical treatment. He later filed a criminal complaint against Atty. Ortega, who was acquitted due to insufficiency of evidence. On April 3, 1989, Praxides sent a letter to Atty. Ortega stating he could not report for work until their differences were resolved for fear of further maltreatment. Atty. Ortega, in a letter dated April 11, 1989, denied the incident and considered Praxides absent without leave. On April 17, 1989, Praxides filed a complaint before the NLRC for unfair labor practice, underpayment, and other claims, later amended to include illegal dismissal. The case underwent repeated postponements, primarily at ITELCO’s instance. Despite a warning from the Labor Arbiter that no further motions for postponement would be entertained, ITELCO again sought to postpone the hearing scheduled for March 1, 1990. The Labor Arbiter denied the motion and deemed the case submitted for decision based on position papers, memoranda, and other pleadings. On February 2, 1993, the Labor Arbiter rendered a decision dismissing the complaint for illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice but ordering ITELCO to reinstate Praxides without backwages or, if reinstatement was not feasible, to pay separation pay equivalent to 1/2 month pay for every year of service, plus labor standard benefits. Both parties appealed to the NLRC, which affirmed the decision but modified the award of separation pay to one month pay for every year of service. ITELCO’s motion for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

1. Whether the NLRC acted with grave abuse of discretion in affirming the Labor Arbiter’s decision to resolve the case without a formal hearing despite ITELCO’s insistence on one.
2. Whether the NLRC acted with grave abuse of discretion in arbitrarily increasing the award of separation pay from 1/2 month to one month salary for every year of service despite the finding that Praxides went on AWOL.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for lack of merit.
1. On the first issue, the Court held that the NLRC did not act with grave abuse of discretion. The holding of a trial is discretionary on the labor arbiter and cannot be demanded as a matter of right. The Labor Arbiter acted within his authority under the NLRC Rules of Procedure to determine, after the submission of position papers and memoranda, whether a formal hearing was necessary. ITELCO’s repeated postponements and failure to appear, despite a warning from the Labor Arbiter, justified the denial of its motion and the submission of the case for decision. A lawyer’s assumption that a motion for postponement bearing the conformity of the other party will be granted is not binding on the court.
2. On the second issue, the Court held that the NLRC did not act with grave abuse of discretion in awarding separation pay equivalent to one month pay for every year of service. While the Labor Arbiter found that Praxides voluntarily desisted from work, he also found that Praxides had some basis for his action due to the alleged assault by Atty. Ortega. The acquittal of Atty. Ortega in the criminal case did not preclude the labor arbiter’s finding, as the quantum of evidence required in criminal cases (proof beyond reasonable doubt) differs from that in labor proceedings (substantial evidence). The filing of the criminal complaint, the police report, medical treatment, and Praxides’ affidavit constituted substantial evidence of the assault. The strained relations between the parties, exacerbated by the criminal complaint, made reinstatement no longer feasible, justifying the award of separation pay in lieu thereof. The award of one month’s salary for every year of service is in conformity with jurisprudence where reinstatement is no longer an option.