FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 113099. January 20, 1999]
ASIA FANCY PLYWOOD CORPORATION, petitioner, vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ROBERTO MANANAP, JOSE RUBIO, AVELINA
NATALIO, GERARDO ANOVER, ELIZAZBETH CELIS AND EDITHA RETEZ, respondents.
D E C I S I O N
PARDO, J.:
The petition before the Court is
for certiorari to nullify a
decision of the National Labor Relations
Commission which modified that
of the Labor
Arbiter and ordered
petitioner, in addition to reinstating
respondents, to pay them backwages not to exceed two (2) years.
The facts may be related as
follows:
Private respondents were regular
employees of petitioner, a company engaged in the business of plywood
lamination with narra flitches as the principal raw material.
On March 7, 1991, private
respondents filed with the Office of
the Labor Arbiter, National Capital Region, Manila, a complaint against petitioner for unfair
labor practice, illegal dismissal, harassment, violation of labor standards and
underpayment of wages.
On April 17, 1991, respondent
amended the complaint with the addition of more complainants.
On June 25, 1991, respondent
further amended the complaint by limiting the case to illegal dismissal only.
On July 23, 1991, petitioner filed
its answer to the amended complaint stating that respondents were not dismissed
or terminated; however, they did not report for work.
On December 3, 1991, the Labor
Arbiter rendered decision ordering respondents
to report for work and petitioner
to re-accept them to their former or substantially equal position without
backwages.
On December 27, 1991, private
respondents appealed the decision to the National Labor Relations Commission.
On September 30, 1993, the
National Labor Relations Commission promulgated a decision modifying that of
the Labor Arbiter. In addition to requiring
petitioner to reinstate
private respondent, the Commission directed petitioner to pay
respondents back wages not to exceed two (2) years.
Hence, the present recourse.
We grant the petition.
As found by the Labor Arbiter,
there was no evidence that private respondents were dismissed from employment.
Nor were they prevented from returning to their work. It was only complainants’
unsubstantiated conclusion that they were dismissed. In fact, petitioner
expressed willingness to accept back private respondents to their former
positions. The payment of back wages will
be required only
if an employee is unjustly or illegally dismissed.[1] Backwages are
granted on grounds of equity to workers for earnings lost due to their illegal
dismissal from work.[2]
Consequently, we find that the
National Labor Relations Commission gravely abused its discretion in ordering
backwages to be paid to private respondents.
WHEREFORE, the Court hereby
SETS ASIDE the decision of the
National Labor Relations
Commission dated September 30,
1993, and the order dated December
2, 1993, in
NLRC NCR Case
No. 002752-92. The decision of the Labor Arbiter dated December 3, 1991,
in NLRC NCR Case No. 00-03-0483-91, is REINSTATED.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Melo, Kapunan, and Martinez, JJ., concur.