FRANCES CLAIRE R. CACERES Case No.

38
Labor Law II Block A

CARLO RANARA vs. NLRC

G.R. No. 100969 August 14, 1992

FACTS:

Petitioner Carlos Ranara had been working as a driver with Oro Union
Construction Supply. One day, he was told by Fe Leonar, secretary of Jimmy
Ting Chang, not to come back the following day. Thinking that she was only
joking, he reported for work as usual but was surprised to find some other
person handling the vehicle previously assigned to him. When he
approached Leonar to ask why his services were being terminated, the latter
only answered that Mr. Chang does not like his work. This prompted him to
file a case for illegal dismissal, with a prayer for his reinstatement and pay of
full back wages, including other monetary claims.

The private respondents, in its Answer, denied the charges, contending that
Ranara had not been illegally dismissed but rather abandoned his work when
he stopped reporting from November 11, 1989. Chang also presented
documentary evidence, consisting of payroll and other records, to refute the
Ranaras monetary claims.

The Labor Arbiter held that Ranara was not illegally dismissed. This decision
was based from Ranaras attitude during the hearing conducted which
showed that he chose to stop working for Chang and not the latter who
terminated his employment. Such decision was later affirmed by the NLRC.

ISSUE/S:

May an employee be compelled to accept his employers offer of

reinstatement if the former charged a complaint against the latter for, in this
case, illegal dismissal?

RULING:

No. The fact that his employer later made an offer to re-employ him did not
cure the vice of his earlier arbitrary dismissal. The wrong had been
committed and the harm done. Notably, it was only after the complaint had
been filed that it occurred to Chang, in a belated gesture of good will, to
invite Ranara back to work in his store. Chang's sincerity is suspect. At any
rate, sincere or not, the offer of reinstatement could not correct the earlier
illegal dismissal of the petitioner. The private respondents incurred liability
under the Labor Code from the moment Ranara was illegally dismissed, and
the liability did not abate as a result of Chang's repentance.

Furthermore, Ranara's rejection of Chang's offer to reinstate him be legally

regarded as abandonment because the petitioner had been placed in an
untenable situation that left him with no other choice. Given again the
smallness of the private respondents' staff, Ranara would have found it
uncomfortable to continue working under the hostile eyes of the employer
who had been forced to reinstate him.