Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Facts:
Respondent is engaged in the business of selling and installing ornamental and construction materials.
It employs petitioners as gypsum board and cornice installers on Jan. 2, 1992 to Feb. 23, 1999 when they
were dismissed for abandonment of work.
Petitioners then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.
LA rendered decision in favor of the petitioners.
NLRC reversed the LA
NLRC found that it was petitioner who abandoned their work and were not entitled to any pay.
CA affirmed the dismissal of the petitioner was not illegal because they had abandoned their
employment but ordered the payment of money claimed.
Issue:
Whether petitioners were illegally dismissed.
Held:
The court held it negatively.
Abandonment is the deliberate and unjustified refusal of an employee to resume his employment.
It is a form of neglect of duty, hence, a just cause for termination of employment by the ER provided:
1. The failure to report for work or absence without valid or justifiable reason; and
2. A clear intention to sever ER-EE relationship, with the second as the more determinative factor
which is manifested by overt acts from which it may be deduced that the EEs has no more
intention to work.
The intent to discontinue the employment must be shown by clear proof that it was deliberate and
unjustified.
Petitioners were frequently absent having subcontracted for an installation work for another company.
Subcontracting for another company clearly showed the intention to sever the ER-EE relationship.
The court have held that an EE who deliberately absented from work, without leave or permission from
his ER, for the purpose of looking for a job elsewhere, is considered to have abandoned his job which
should apply that rule with more reason here where petitioners were absent because they were already
working in another company.
Procedurally, if the dismissal is based on Art. 282, the ER must give the EE 2 written notices and a hearing
or opportunity to be heard.
If the dismissal is based on Art. 283 and 284, the ER must give the EE and the DOLE written notices 30
days prior to the effectivity of his separation.
There are four possible scenarios may be derived:
Just Cause or Due Process
Effect
Authorized Cause Observed
1st scenario ER will not suffer any liability
Under Art. 279, EE is entitled to reinstatement w/o
2nd scenario X loss of seniority rights and other privileges, back
wages from the time compensation wasn’t paid
Under Art. 279, EE is entitled to reinstatement w/o
rd
3 scenario X X loss of seniority rights and other privileges, back
wages from the time compensation wasn’t paid
Dismissal should be upheld but because of
th
4 scenario X procedural infirmity, ER is held liable for non-
compliance w/ the procedural requirements
Respondent here didn’t follow the law mandated twin notice requirements to the EEs last known address.