City Trucking, Inc. / Edles vs. Balajadia

Requesting a Certificate of Employment after being informed of termination does not constitute abandonment of employment; furthermore, a party who does not appeal cannot obtain affirmative relief beyond what was granted in the decision appealed from, and reinstatement is not viable where the employee has expressly prayed for separation pay in lieu of reinstatement.

Petitioner City Trucking, Inc. was engaged in hauling waste from Manila to the San Mateo landfill in Rizal. On December 31, 2000, the San Mateo landfill was closed, severely affecting the company's operations.

• January 24, 2001: Respondent filed complaint with the Public Assistance and Complaints Unit (PACU) of the DOLE.
• March 1, 2001: PACU held first conference; second conference scheduled for April 4, 2001.
• March 14, 2001: Before the second PACU conference, respondent filed complaint for illegal dismissal with the NLRC.
• August 31, 2001: Labor Arbiter Cresencio G. Ramos, Jr. rendered decision declaring illegal dismissal and awarding separation pay in lieu of reinstatement (P28,000) and backwages (P33,930).
• Appeal to NLRC: NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter's decision and denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration.
• Petition for Certiorari with CA: CA affirmed NLRC but modified the decision to order immediate reinstatement instead of separation pay.
• SC Petition: Petitioners sought review of the CA's reinstatement order.

• June 20, 1994: Respondent Antonio Balajadia employed as helper mechanic/maintenance staff with duties including purchasing spare parts and assisting in truck repairs.
• Compensation: P150.00 daily, working 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Mondays to Sundays.
• January 2001: Honorato Edles (chief mechanic, cousin of petitioner John Edles) informed respondent he could continue working but should not expect payment unless clients paid.
• Few days later: Rowena Edles (company secretary, sister of John Edles) asked respondent why he was still working when he had already been terminated.
• January 7, 2001: Respondent stopped reporting for work.
• January 18, 2001: Respondent requested a Certificate of Employment from John Edles. The certificate was issued, stating he served as Assistant Mechanic from January 1990 to December 2000.
• Procedural Timeline: 17 days elapsed between last day of work (Jan 7) and PACU filing (Jan 24); 49 days between PACU filing and NLRC filing (March 14).

• Respondent abandoned his employment evidenced by: (a) history of absenteeism; (b) request for Certificate of Employment after failing to report; (c) belated filing of complaint (17 days to PACU, 49 days to NLRC).
• Reinstatement is improper due to strained relations and respondent's own prayer for separation pay in lieu of reinstatement before the Labor Arbiter.
• The CA erred in awarding reinstatement when the Labor Arbiter and NLRC did not order it and respondent did not appeal.

• No abandonment; he stopped reporting only after being told his services were terminated and that he would not be paid.
• Request for Certificate of Employment was a normal post-termination request, not evidence of abandonment.
• Filing with PACU within 17 days and NLRC within 49 days was prompt and within the prescriptive period.

• Procedural Issues:
  • Whether the 17-day delay in filing with PACU and 49-day delay in filing with NLRC constitute abandonment or bar the action.
  • Whether the CA could order reinstatement when the Labor Arbiter and NLRC awarded separation pay in lieu of reinstatement and respondent did not appeal.
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether respondent abandoned his employment.
  • Whether reinstatement is proper where the employee prayed for separation pay from the outset and admitted strained relations.

• Procedural:
  • The delays do not constitute abandonment. Filing with PACU 17 days after termination and with NLRC 49 days later is reasonable. Under Art. 1146 of the Civil Code, an employee has four years to institute an action for illegal dismissal.
  • The CA exceeded its authority in ordering reinstatement. A party who has not appealed cannot obtain from the appellate court any affirmative relief other than those granted in the appealed decision. Since respondent did not appeal the Labor Arbiter's award of separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, he could not be granted the greater relief of reinstatement by the CA.
• Substantive:
  • No abandonment. Mere absence does not equate to abandonment. The burden of proving deliberate and unjustified refusal to resume employment rests on the employer.
  • The request for Certificate of Employment was made after being told of termination; it is a normal post-employment request and does not show intent to abandon.
  • Reinstatement deleted. Reinstatement is not viable where: (1) the employer's business has closed or relations are severely strained; (2) the employee decides not to be reinstated. Respondent prayed for separation pay in lieu of reinstatement from the start, foreclosing reinstatement as a relief.

• Abandonment of Employment — Defined as the deliberate and unjustified refusal of an employee to resume his employment. To constitute abandonment, there must be concurrence of:
  1. Failure to report for work or absence without valid or justifiable reason;
  2. 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.
  4. Burden of proof rests on the employer to prove deliberate refusal with no intention of returning.
  5. Non-Appealing Party Rule — A party who has not appealed cannot obtain from the appellate court any affirmative relief other than those granted in the appealed decision.
  6. Reinstatement Not Viable — Reinstatement is improper where: (a) the business has closed; (b) relations are severely strained; or (c) the employee decides not to be reinstated (e.g., by praying for separation pay in lieu of reinstatement from the outset).

• "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."
• "A party who has not appealed cannot obtain from the appellate court any affirmative relief other than those granted in the appealed decision."
• "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."

• Agabon v. NLRC (G.R. No. 158693, November 17, 2004) — Cited for the definition of abandonment and its three requisites; followed as controlling precedent.
• Veterans Security Agency, Inc. v. Gonzalvo, Jr. (G.R. No. 159293, December 16, 2005) — Cited for the rule that the burden of proving abandonment rests on the employer.
• Kingsize Manufacturing Corp. v. NLRC (G.R. Nos. 110452-54, November 24, 1994, 238 SCRA 349) — Distinguished; SC noted that even a nine-month delay in that case was not considered abandonment, reinforcing that the 49-day delay here is insignificant.
• Solidbank Corp. v. CA (G.R. No. 151026, August 25, 2003) — Cited for the doctrine that reinstatement is not viable when an employee prays for separation pay in lieu of reinstatement or when relations are strained.
• Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc. v. Daniel (G.R. No. 156893, June 21, 2005) — Cited for the non-appealing party rule.

• Art. 1146, Civil Code — Prescriptive period of four years for actions upon an injury to the rights of the plaintiff (applied to illegal dismissal claims).
• Labor Code (implied) — Provisions governing illegal dismissal, separation pay, and reinstatement.

N/A (Sandoval-Gutierrez, Corona, Azcuna, and Garcia, JJ., concurred without separate opinions).