FACTS:

The case involves a petition for review of the decision of the Court of Appeals dismissing the petition for certiorari filed by the petitioner. The petition for certiorari sought to reverse the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), which affirmed the labor arbiter's ruling, holding the petitioner liable for illegal dismissal and ordering the reinstatement of the private respondent.

According to the private respondent, he had worked as a bus driver for the petitioner for almost six years. He was paid based on a percentage of his daily earnings. On January 31, 1996, his driver's license was confiscated by the Land Transportation Office (LTO) due to obstruction of traffic. He was able to retrieve his license only after a week.

On February 8, 1996, the private respondent informed the company that he was ready to report for work. However, he was informed that the company was still considering whether to allow him to drive again and was accused of causing damage to the bus he used to drive.

The labor arbiter, after considering the facts, found that the dismissal was without just cause. As a remedy, the labor arbiter ordered the petitioner to reinstate the private respondent. This decision was later affirmed by the NLRC. The Court of Appeals also denied the petition for certiorari filed by the petitioner.

The petitioner argued that the private respondent had abandoned his job. Additionally, the petitioner claimed that their relationship was not one of employment but, rather, a lease agreement.

The case primarily tackles the issue of whether the dismissal of the private respondent was justified.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the petitioner is liable for illegal dismissal.

2. Whether the petitioner is an employer and the private respondent is an employee.

RULING:

1. The labor arbiter held that the petitioner is liable for illegal dismissal, as the one-week absence of the private respondent was not his fault and petitioner failed to accord him due process. The NLRC affirmed this decision, stating that the right to due process was not given to the private respondent prior to his termination. The Court of Appeals upheld the decision, emphasizing the respect due to the findings of fact of the labor arbiter and NLRC.

2. The NLRC ruled that although the private respondent was paid on a commission basis, an employer-employee relationship still exists. The Court of Appeals agreed with this ruling, stating that the petitioner cannot deny the existence of an employer-employee relationship since it invoked its rights as an employer in dismissing the private respondent.

PRINCIPLES:

• Abandonment of work requires proof of the deliberate and unjustified refusal to resume employment.

• Due process must be accorded to an employee prior to termination.

• Payment of employees on a piece-rate or commission basis does not preclude the existence of an employer-employee relationship.