FACTS:

The petitioners, Every Nation Language Institute (ENLI) and its President, Ralph Martin Ligon, seek the reversal of the Court of Appeals' (CA) decision and resolution. ENLI hired Maria Minellie Dela Cruz as Marketing Officer for its Calamba, Laguna branch in August 2011. Dela Cruz later became Branch Administrator and was responsible for managing the branch's operations and financial matters. ENLI received complaints about Dela Cruz's tardiness, unanswered calls, and failure to submit financial reports.

Dela Cruz was directed to submit the required documents for audit but refused to comply. She reported ENLI's non-payment of teachers' salaries to the barangay hall. Dela Cruz filed a complaint for underpayment of salaries and other claims before the Labor Arbiter. ENLI investigated Dela Cruz and found various infractions. Dela Cruz allegedly caused a scene at ENLI's Sta. Rosa, Laguna branch and there were reports of attempted theft from the Calamba branch. A notice to suspend was issued to Dela Cruz but she refused to acknowledge receipt. Dela Cruz did not report back to work after the 30-day suspension period lapsed. She filed a complaint for illegal suspension and termination.

Petitioners argued that Dela Cruz was only preventively suspended, not dismissed. They justified the preventive suspension on the ground that as branch manager, Dela Cruz had access to confidential reports and financial documents which she could alter to cover her infractions. Petitioners attached affidavits executed by their employees as evidence of Dela Cruz's alleged infractions. The Labor Arbiter dismissed Dela Cruz's complaint, ruling that she was not yet dismissed but merely suspended at the time she filed the complaint. The Labor Arbiter also denied Dela Cruz's complaint for underpayment of salary and dismissed her money claims.

On appeal, the NLRC found Dela Cruz to have been illegally dismissed and granted her appeal. The NLRC ordered the payment of backwages and separation pay. Petitioners moved to set aside the entry of judgment and filed a motion for reconsideration, which were partly granted and denied by the NLRC. Petitioners then lodged a certiorari petition before the CA, alleging that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in giving due course to and granting Dela Cruz's appeal despite being filed beyond the reglementary period. The CA initially dismissed the petition but reinstated it upon the curing of defects. The CA ultimately dismissed the certiorari petition.

The case revolves around a labor dispute between the petitioner, an employee, and the respondent, the employer. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the petitioner and granted him monetary benefits. However, the respondent filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by the Labor Arbiter. The respondent then appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).

The NLRC reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter and dismissed the petitioner's complaint. Dissatisfied with the NLRC ruling, the petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied. Consequently, the petitioner filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA) assailing the NLRC's decision.

The CA, in its decision, dismissed the petition for certiorari. It enumerated several issues for resolution, including whether the admission of a fact is an established fact that cannot be subject to the court's discretion, whether the NLRC acted with grave abuse of discretion, and whether the Labor Arbiter's decision should be affirmed.

Despite the dismissal of the petition by the CA, the petitioner seeks a review of the CA's decision before the Supreme Court.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in giving due course to the respondent's appeal despite having been filed out of time.

2. Whether the CA erred in not discussing the issue as to whether the NLRC's Decision should be reversed due to its erroneous finding of illegal dismissal.

3. Whether the CA sustained the NLRC's decision despite failure to meet the standard of proof required in administrative proceedings.

4. Whether or not Dela Cruz seasonably filed her appeal.

5. Whether or not the dismissal of Dela Cruz was legal.

6. Whether or not Dela Cruz abandoned her employment.

7. Whether the preventive suspension ripened into constructive dismissal.

8. Whether the defense of abandonment is valid.

RULING:

1. The Court affirmed the ruling of the NLRC, with the modification that the award for backwages should only be reckoned from the date of constructive dismissal up to the finality of the decision.

2. The Court found that the NLRC did not gravely abuse its discretion in finding that Dela Cruz seasonably filed her appeal. The Court agreed with the NLRC's reliance on Dela Cruz's allegation, as stated in her Memorandum of Appeal, that she received the Labor Arbiter's Decision on April 15, 2013.

3. The Court determined that Dela Cruz's dismissal, or rather preventive suspension, was legal. The employer had the prerogative to place the employee under preventive suspension if the employee posed a serious and imminent threat to the life or property of the employer or co-workers. In this case, Dela Cruz's preventive suspension was justified considering her access to the branch's finances, property, and records. However, the employer had the duty to reinstate the employee after 30 days of suspension, and failure to do so may result in constructive dismissal.

4. The Court concluded that Dela Cruz did abandon her employment. Even though the 30-day preventive suspension period expired, there was no effort on the part of the employer to reinstate Dela Cruz to her former position. The employer did not require her to report for work or manifest any intention to recall her. These circumstances, combined with the lack of conclusion regarding the result of the investigation, led to the conclusion that Dela Cruz's employment was constructively dismissed.

5. The preventive suspension ripened into constructive dismissal upon the lapse thereof on July 22, 2012, without the employee being actually reinstated or included in the payroll.

6. The defense of abandonment is not valid because the employee's absence from work was not due to a deliberate act of abandonment but an act of constructive dismissal by the employer.

PRINCIPLES:

• The Court of Appeals, in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, may only review the NLRC's decision on whether there is grave abuse of discretion in admitting an appeal, and not the entire decision on factual and legal grounds.

• A review under Rule 45 is limited to questions of law only, and the Court's task is to determine whether the CA was correct in ruling on the presence or absence of grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC.

• The Court generally does not entertain questions of fact in a petition for review on certiorari.

• Preventive suspension is not a penalty but a disciplinary measure to protect life or property.

• Preventive suspension is justified when the employee's continued employment poses a serious and imminent threat to the employer's or co-workers' life or property.

• The duration of preventive suspension is limited to a maximum of 30 days, with the employer having a duty to reinstate the employee after the lapse of this period.

• Failure to reinstate the employee after the preventive suspension period may result in constructive dismissal.

• When a preventive suspension ripens into constructive dismissal, the employee is entitled to backwages from the time of dismissal until the finality of the decision.

• In cases of constructive dismissal, the employee is entitled to reinstatement. However, if reinstatement is no longer feasible, separation pay may be awarded.

• Abandonment as a just cause for dismissal requires the employee's failure to report for work without a valid or justifiable reason, and a clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship. The second element, manifested by overt acts, is the more determinative factor.