City Trucking, Inc. / Edles vs. Balajadia

An employee who expressly prays for separation pay in lieu of reinstatement from the start of the proceedings forecloses reinstatement as a relief by implication; consequently, a party who has not appealed cannot obtain from the appellate court any affirmative relief other than those granted in the appealed decision.

• Petitioner City Trucking, Inc. is engaged in waste hauling and disposal, with John Edles as its General Manager.
• Respondent Antonio Balajadia was employed as a helper mechanic from June 20, 1994, earning P150.00 daily, working from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Mondays to Sundays.
• On December 31, 2000, the San Mateo landfill was closed down, affecting petitioners' operations.
• In January 2001, Honorato Edles (chief mechanic and cousin of petitioner John Edles) informed Balajadia that he could continue working but should not expect salary unless clients paid.
• A few days later, Rowena Edles (company secretary and sister of petitioner John Edles) told Balajadia that his services had already been terminated.
• Balajadia stopped reporting for work on January 7, 2001.
• On January 18, 2001, Balajadia requested and was issued a Certificate of Employment stating he was an Assistant Mechanic from January 1990 to December 2000.
• On January 24, 2001, Balajadia filed a complaint with the Public Assistance and Complaints Unit (PACU) of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE).
• On March 14, 2001, Balajadia filed the formal complaint for illegal dismissal with the NLRC.
• Throughout the proceedings, Balajadia prayed for separation pay in lieu of reinstatement.

• Respondent Balajadia abandoned his employment, evidenced by his history of absenteeism, his request for a Certificate of Employment, and the belated filing of his complaint for illegal dismissal.
• Reinstatement should not be ordered because the Labor Arbiter and NLRC did not order reinstatement, and respondent admitted strained relations between him and the employer.
• Respondent consistently prayed for separation pay in lieu of reinstatement from the start of the proceedings.
• Respondent is not entitled to backwages during the pendency of the appeal because he did not appeal the labor arbiter's decision which did not order reinstatement.

• Respondent was illegally dismissed, not having abandoned his employment, as he stopped reporting only after being told by the company secretary that he was terminated.
• The request for Certificate of Employment was made after termination and is normal procedure, not evidence of abandonment.
• The filing of the complaint was timely and showed intent to contest the dismissal, negating abandonment.

• Procedural:
  • Whether an employee who did not appeal the labor arbiter's decision is entitled to backwages during the pendency of the appeal even if the assailed decision did not order reinstatement.
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether an employee's act of requesting a Certificate of Employment after failing to report to work constitutes abandonment of employment.
  • Whether a former employee could be reinstated despite his prayer for separation pay in lieu of reinstatement and admission of strained relations.

• Procedural:
  • The Court impliedly resolved this issue by noting that the respondent did not appeal the decision awarding separation pay and backwages, and therefore could not obtain reinstatement as an affirmative relief not granted in the appealed decision. The award of backwages by the Labor Arbiter and NLRC was affirmed.
• Substantive:
  • Requesting a Certificate of Employment after being informed of termination does not constitute abandonment; abandonment requires deliberate intent to leave permanently and overt acts showing no intention to return, which were not proven by petitioners. The alleged absenteeism was explained by the assurance of non-payment, and the prompt filing of complaints negated any intent to abandon.
  • Reinstatement is not viable where the employee expressly prays for separation pay in lieu of reinstatement from the start of proceedings, as this forecloses reinstatement by implication. The Court deleted the reinstatement order of the Court of Appeals, maintaining the award of separation pay and backwages.

• Abandonment of Employment — Defined as the deliberate and unjustified refusal of an employee to resume his employment, requiring the concurrence of: (1) failure to report for work or absence without valid or justifiable reason; (2) a deliberate intent of the employee to leave his work permanently; and (3) overt act/s from which it may be inferred that the employee had no more intention to resume his work. The burden of proving abandonment rests on the employer. Applied to hold that requesting a Certificate of Employment after being told of termination, coupled with prompt filing of illegal dismissal complaints, negates abandonment.
• Prayer for Separation Pay as Foreclosure of Reinstatement — An employee who expressly prays for separation pay in lieu of reinstatement from the start of the proceedings forecloses reinstatement as a relief by implication, making reinstatement no longer viable even if the dismissal is illegal.
• Non-appealing Party Limitation — A party who has not appealed cannot obtain from the appellate court any affirmative relief other than those granted in the appealed decision.

• "Abandonment is the deliberate and unjustified refusal of an employee to resume his employment."
• "Getting a Certificate of Employment is normal. To contend that it is evidence of abandonment is non sequitur."
• "An employee who forthwith takes steps to protest his removal from employment cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be said to have abandoned his work."
• "A party who has not appealed cannot obtain from the appellate court any affirmative relief other than those granted in the appealed decision."
• "By so doing, he forecloses reinstatement as a relief by implication."

• Agabon v. NLRC — Cited for the definition and elements of abandonment of employment.
• Kingsize Manufacturing Corp. v. NLRC — Cited for the principle that a lapse of nine months before filing a complaint for illegal dismissal is a non-issue.
• Solidbank Corp. v. CA — Cited for the principle that reinstatement is no longer viable where the employee decides not to be reinstated or where separation pay is prayed for.
• Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc. v. Daniel — Cited for the rule that a non-appealing party cannot obtain affirmative relief other than those granted in the appealed decision.
• Veterans Security Agency, Inc. v. Gonzalvo, Jr. — Cited for the elements of abandonment and the burden of proof resting on the employer.

• Article 1146, Civil Code — Cited for the four-year prescriptive period within which to institute an action for illegal dismissal.