Jackson Building Condominium Corporation vs. NLRC

Abandonment requires both the employee's intention to abandon the employment and an overt act from which such intention may be inferred; a medically justified absence followed by a prompt return to work and the immediate filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal negates abandonment and entitles the employee to reinstatement and full back wages.

Jackson Building Condominium Corporation employed Ferdinand Gumogda as a janitor at a monthly salary of ₱2,340.00 (daily wage of ₱90.00) from November 22, 1989. Razul Requesto was the corporation's president. The dispute arose within the framework of labor-law protections against illegal dismissal, specifically the doctrines on abandonment as a just cause for termination and the statutory entitlement to back wages and thirteenth-month pay under R.A. No. 6715 and P.D. No. 851, respectively.

Ferdinand Gumogda was employed as a janitor by Jackson Building Condominium Corporation on November 22, 1989, at a monthly salary of ₱2,340.00, equivalent to a daily wage of ₱90.00. On November 15, 1991, Gumogda filed a 45-day leave of absence — from November 15, 1991 to December 29, 1991 — to undergo an appendectomy. His medical certificate indicated that the operation would necessitate complete bed rest for approximately thirty days from the date of the procedure. The petitioners granted the leave.

Gumogda's physician advised him to rest for thirty days before reporting back to work in order to recuperate. Gumogda heeded this advice and in fact exceeded the recommended recuperation period, reporting back to work on January 3, 1992 — fifty days after his operation. On that date, he informed petitioner Razul Requesto, president of the corporation, that he was physically fit to resume his duties. Petitioners, however, refused to accept him back, contending that he was still weak and that he should first secure a medical clearance attesting to his fitness to work.

Petitioners thereafter treated Gumogda's failure to submit a medical clearance or to report for work as abandonment. On March 24, 1992, Gumogda filed a complaint with the Labor Arbiter against petitioners for illegal dismissal, underpayment of wages, and non-payment of thirteenth-month pay and service-incentive leave pay. In their position paper submitted on July 12, 1992, petitioners maintained that Gumogda was not dismissed but merely advised to rest until he could procure a medical certificate, and that he failed to return or submit the required certificate.

The Labor Arbiter found in favor of Gumogda, a finding affirmed in toto by the NLRC. Both tribunals found that Gumogda had not abandoned his employment, having returned after a medically justified recuperation period and having promptly sought reinstatement through the filing of the complaint.

• Abandonment: Petitioners contended that private respondent was still weak when he reported back for work and was asked to secure a medical clearance, which he failed to submit or to report for work thereafter; hence, they considered him to have abandoned his employment.
• No Remuneration During Absence: Petitioners urged that private respondent was not entitled to any remuneration during the period he did not report for work, invoking the principle of "a fair day's work for a fair day's pay."
• Grave Abuse of Discretion by Labor Arbiter: On appeal to the NLRC, petitioners alleged that the Labor Arbiter committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling against them.

• Abandonment: Whether private respondent abandoned his work.
• Liability for Monetary Awards: Whether petitioners are liable for the payment of private respondent's back wages, differential pay, thirteenth-month pay, and service-incentive leave pay for 1991.

• Abandonment: No. The two requisites of abandonment — intention to abandon coupled with an overt act manifesting such intention — were not present, the employee having returned after a medically justified recuperation and immediately filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.
• Liability for Monetary Awards: Yes. Petitioners are liable for back wages under Section 31 of R.A. No. 6715 (amending Article 279 of the Labor Code) and for thirteenth-month pay under P.D. No. 851 as amended by Memorandum Order No. 28, the award being predicated on the finding of illegal dismissal.

• Abandonment: For abandonment to constitute a valid ground for dismissal, two requisites must be compresent: (1) the intention by the employee to abandon the employment, and (2) an overt act from which it may be inferred that the employee had no more intention to resume work. Neither requisite was satisfied. As found by the Labor Arbiter, Gumogda's physician advised thirty days of rest before returning to work; Gumogda followed this advice and even exceeded the recommended period, reporting back fifty days after his operation. This demonstrated readiness to resume his responsibilities. Furthermore, the filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal is inconsistent with an allegation of abandonment, as an employee who abandons work would not immediately seek reinstatement. The Court declined to disturb the factual findings of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC, both of which were supported by substantial evidence, consistent with the established principle that findings of fact of administrative agencies are accorded respect.

• Liability for Monetary Awards: The principle of "a fair day's work for a fair day's pay" invoked by petitioners was refuted by the applicable statute. Section 31 of R.A. No. 6715, which amended Article 279 of the Labor Code, provides that an employee who is unjustly dismissed shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges, and to full back wages inclusive of allowances and other benefits or their monetary equivalent, computed from the time compensation was withheld up to actual reinstatement. The award of back wages was predicated on the ground that Gumogda was illegally dismissed, not on his failure to report for work. As to thirteenth-month pay, P.D. No. 851 as amended by Memorandum Order No. 28 entitles employees to the benefit regardless of designation and irrespective of the method by which wages are paid.

• Abandonment as Just Cause for Dismissal — Abandonment requires two compresent requisites: (1) the intention by the employee to abandon the employment, and (2) an overt act from which it may be inferred that the employee had no more intention to resume work. The Court applied this test and found neither element present, as the employee's absence was medically justified and his prompt return and filing of an illegal dismissal complaint negated any intent to sever the employment relationship.

• Respect for Findings of Fact of Administrative Agencies — Findings of fact of administrative agencies, when supported by substantial evidence, are not disturbed by the Court. The Court applied this principle by declining to re-examine the factual findings of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC, which had both ruled that no abandonment occurred.

• Filing of Illegal Dismissal Complaint as Inconsistent with Abandonment — The filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal is incompatible with an allegation of abandonment, since an employee who intends to sever the employment relationship would not immediately seek reinstatement. The Court relied on this principle to reject the employer's abandonment theory.

• "For abandonment to be a valid ground for dismissal, two requisites must be compresent: the intention by an employee to abandon coupled with an overt act from which it may be inferred that the employee had no more intention to resume his work." — This passage states the canonical two-element test for abandonment that the Court applied to exonerate the employee.

• "Surely, an employee's posture will be illogical if he abandons his work and then immediately files an action for his reinstatement." — This formulation articulates the logical inconsistency between abandonment and the filing of an illegal dismissal complaint, a principle frequently invoked in labor cases to negate the defense of abandonment.

• Wyeth-Suaco Laboratories, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 219 SCRA 356 (1993) — Followed for the proposition that the Court does not disturb findings of fact of administrative agencies when supported by substantial evidence.

• People's Security, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 226 SCRA 146 (1993) — Followed as the source of the two-requisite test for abandonment as a valid ground for dismissal.

• Remerco Garments Manufacturing vs. Minister of Labor and Employment, 135 SCRA 167 (1985) — Followed for the principle that the filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal is inconsistent with an allegation of abandonment.

• Llosa-Tan vs. Silahis International Hotel, 181 SCRA 738 (1990) — Followed for the proposition that the award of back wages is predicated on the finding of illegal dismissal, not on the employee's failure to report for work.

• Section 31, Republic Act No. 6715 (amending Article 279, Labor Code of the Philippines) — Provides that an employee who is unjustly dismissed shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges, and to full back wages inclusive of allowances and other benefits or their monetary equivalent, computed from the time compensation was withheld up to actual reinstatement. Applied to sustain the award of back wages to the illegally dismissed employee.

• Presidential Decree No. 851, as amended by Memorandum Order No. 28 — Mandates the thirteenth-month pay benefit for employees regardless of designation and irrespective of the method by which wages are paid. Applied to uphold the award of thirteenth-month pay to private respondent.

Padilla, Davide Jr., Bellosillo, and Kapunan, JJ., concurred.