CARLO RANARA, petitioner, vs.

NATIONAL LABOR been placed in an untenable situation that

RELATIONS COMMISSION, ORO UNION CONSTRUCTION left him with no other choice.
SUPPLY AND/OR JIMMY TING CHANG, GENERAL o Given again the smallness of the private
MANAGER/OWNER, respondents. respondents' staff, Ranara would have found
it uncomfortable to continue working under
G.R. No. 100969 August 14, 1992 the hostile eyes of the employer who had
been forced to reinstate him.
CRUZ, J.: o He was only one among ten employees in a
small store
 Petitioner Carlos Ranara had been working as a
 It is clear that the petitioner was illegally dismissed
driver with Oro Union Construction Supply, one of the
without even the politeness of a proper notice.
herein private respondents, when he was told by Fe
o Without cause and without any investigation,
Leonar, secretary of the other private respondent,
formal or otherwise, Ranara was simply told
Jimmy Ting Chang, not to come back the following
that he should not report back for work the
day.
following day.
 Thinking that she was only joking, be reported for
 The fact that his employer later made an offer to
work as usual on November 11, 1989, but was
re-employ him did not cure the vice of his earlier
surprised to find some other person handling the
arbitrary dismissal.
vehicle previously assigned to him.
o The wrong had been committed and the
 It was only then that Ranara realized that he had
harm done.
really been separated. When he approached Leonar
o Notably, it was only after the complaint had
to ask why his services were being terminated, she
been filed that it occurred to Chang, in a
replied crossly:
belated gesture of good will, to invite Ranara
o You are hard-headed. I told you last night
back to work in his store.
when you turned over the key not to report
o Chang's sincerity is suspect. We doubt if his
for work because Mr. Jimmy Ting Chang
offer would have been made if Ranara had
does not like your services, yet you, come
not complained against him.
back.
 At any rate, sincere or not, the offer of
 Three days later, Ranara filed a complaint with the
reinstatement could not correct the earlier illegal
Department of Labor and Employment for illegal
dismissal of the petitioner. The private
dismissal, reinstatement with full back wages,
respondents incurred liability under the Labor
underpayment of wages, overtime pay, non-payment
Code from the moment Ranara was illegally
of 13th month pay, service incentive leave, separation
dismissed, and the liability did not abate as a
pay and moral damages.
result of Chang's repentance.
 The private respondents denied the charges,
contending that the petitioner had not been illegally WHEREFORE, the challenged decision of the NLRC is
dismissed. AFFIRMED, with the modification that in addition to the
o The truth was that it was Ranara who monetary awards therein specified, the petitioner shall be
abandoned his work when he stopped entitled to separation pay and three years' back wages in lieu
reporting from November 11, 1989. of reinstatement. No costs.
 LA: held that Ranara had not been illegally dismissed.
o The decision stressed that at the hearing of
December 28, 1989, Chang offered to re-
employ the petitioner but the latter demurred,
saying he was no longer interested.
o This attitude, according to the Labor Arbiter,
showed that it was the petitioner who chose
to stop working for Chang and not the latter
who terminated his employment.
 The decision was affirmed on appeal, by the NLRC

W/N Ranara was illegally dismissed – Yes

 The charge of abandonment does not square with the

recorded fact that three days after Ranara's alleged
dismissal, he filed a complaint with the labor
authorities.
o The two acts are plainly inconsistent.
o Neither can Ranara's rejection of Chang's
offer to reinstate him be legally regarded as
an abandonment because the petitioner had