Josan, JPS, Santiago Cargo Movers vs. Aduna

Abandonment requires the concurrence of two elements: (1) failure to report for work or absence without valid or justifiable reason, and (2) a clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship; the second element is the more determinative and must be manifested by overt acts. An employee told to “lie low” and then not given further assignments, who immediately files an illegal dismissal complaint, is not guilty of abandonment and is deemed constructively dismissed.

Petitioners are in the trucking business under the sole proprietorship of Mary Grace S. Parungao, their president-manager. Respondent Eduardo Ramos Aduna worked for them as a delivery truck driver tasked to deliver ingredients used in poultry feed production, with pay on a per-trip basis depending on trip length or distance.

In January 2001, petitioners hired Eduardo Ramos Aduna as a delivery truck driver tasked to make deliveries of various ingredients used in the production of poultry feeds. His payment was on a per-trip basis, the amount depending on the length of the trip or the distance to the point of destination. On the morning of 5 December 2005, Parungao told Aduna to come to work later in the day to make deliveries. When he reported for work a little before 5 p.m. that afternoon, Parungao noticed that he was drunk and advised him not to make deliveries anymore on account of his inebriated condition. According to petitioners, respondent reacted discourteously by hurling invectives at her and purportedly uttered, “Hindi lang sa inyo makakapagtrabaho dahil maraming kompanya,” after which he threw out the keys of the vehicles assigned to him and stormed out of the office. On his way out, he met co-employee Raymond dela Cruz, and the two had a confrontation within company premises, which eventually led to respondent’s punching Dela Cruz several times.

Aduna did not report for work until about 50 days from the date of the incident. On 24 January 2006, when he returned to the office, he allegedly informed Maria Agnes del Castillo that he no longer wished to continue working with petitioners and asked for a certificate of employment, which he would use in applying for a new job. Petitioners posit that they did not terminate him as it was actually respondent who had refused to work, and he no longer worked for petitioners thereafter.

Respondent denies being drunk when he went to work; according to him, he only had a bottle of beer early that day. He rejects the allegation that he hurled invectives at Parungao, as he had never been instructed to cease carrying out his delivery assignments in the first place. He also denies punching Dela Cruz, explaining that they simply had a misunderstanding; supposedly, Dela Cruz was just displeased with how the new driver, whom Aduna had recommended, was being treated favorably by petitioners. Respondent alludes to the police blotter of Dela Cruz, who only mentioned being elbowed by Aduna.

Respondent narrates that after the incident of 5 December 2005, he was told to “lie low” until further notice in order to set an example to other employees. Despite his objections, he eventually acceded to the instruction. Thereafter, he claims that he was no longer given any delivery assignments and was even prevented from entering company premises. He argues that petitioners voluntarily issued to him a Certificate of Employment without his asking, and that he was told to look for work for the time being. He thus contends that he did not abandon his job. Consequently, he filed a Complaint for illegal dismissal and nonpayment of overtime, holiday, 13th month, and service incentive leave pays.

The LA gave credence to petitioners’ assertion that Aduna was no longer interested in returning to work, as evidenced by his request for a certificate of employment. The NLRC and CA found that the true reason he did not report for work for about 50 days was that petitioners told him to “lie low,” and that no further notice or assignment was given.

• Abandonment: Petitioners maintained that they did not terminate respondent; it was respondent who refused to work and abandoned his job, as shown by his failure to report for work and his alleged statement to Maria Agnes del Castillo that he no longer wished to continue working and request for a certificate of employment.

• Abandonment: Respondent contended that he did not abandon his job because after the 5 December 2005 incident he was told to “lie low” until further notice, was no longer given delivery assignments, and was prevented from entering company premises; the Certificate of Employment was issued without his asking and he was told to look for work for the time being.
• Denial of Just Cause: Respondent denied being drunk, hurling invectives at Parungao, and punching Dela Cruz; he claimed the confrontation with Dela Cruz was a misunderstanding and cited Dela Cruz’s police blotter mentioning only an elbow.

• Illegal Dismissal: Whether respondent was illegally dismissed.

• Illegal Dismissal: Yes. The SC held that respondent was constructively dismissed; petitioners failed to prove abandonment because he was told to “lie low,” was given no further assignments, and immediately filed an illegal dismissal complaint.

• Illegal Dismissal: The SC ruled in the affirmative. Abandonment is a matter of intention and cannot lightly be presumed from equivocal acts, especially during hardship. Two elements must concur: (1) failure to report for work or absence without valid or justifiable reason; and (2) a clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship. The second element is more determinative and must be manifested by overt acts; mere absence does not ipso facto amount to abandonment. To prove abandonment, the employer must show the employee deliberately and unjustifiably refused to resume employment without intention of returning. The NLRC and CA found that the true reason respondent did not report for work for about 50 days was that petitioners told him to “lie low”; this finding of fact was not disturbed. When he realized he would no longer receive work assignments, he wasted no time in filing an illegal dismissal case; employees who protest their dismissal cannot logically be said to have abandoned their work, and a charge of abandonment is inconsistent with immediate filing. Respondent was therefore constructively dismissed; constructive dismissal exists when continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable, or unlikely. Although Aduna agreed to “lie low,” it became clear petitioners no longer intended to give future assignments; they deemed the Certificate of Employment a sign of abandonment. The continued failure to offer a new assignment made them liable for constructive dismissal. The instruction to temporarily “lie low” was meant as permanent cessation; absent proof of dire exigency justifying failure to give further assignments, the only logical conclusion is constructive dismissal. In an illegal dismissal case, the onus probandi rests on the employer to prove a valid cause; since petitioners based their defense on abandonment, they had to prove it clearly, voluntarily, and intentionally, which they failed to do. If evidence of employer and employee are in equipoise, the scales must tilt in favor of the employee. Article 279 entitles an unjustly dismissed employee to reinstatement, back wages, allowances, and other benefits, but in recognition of strained relations, petitioners are instead liable for separation pay as found by the CA.

• Abandonment — Requires two elements: (1) failure to report for work or absence without valid or justifiable reason; and (2) a clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship. The second is more determinative and must be shown by overt acts; mere absence does not ipso facto amount to abandonment. In this case, Aduna’s 50-day absence was due to being told to “lie low,” and his immediate complaint negated intent to abandon.
• Constructive Dismissal — Exists when continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable, or unlikely. The SC applied it where petitioners told Aduna to “lie low,” gave no further assignments, and effectively eased him out; the instruction meant permanent cessation absent proof of dire exigency.
• Burden of Proof in Illegal Dismissal — The employer bears the onus probandi to prove that dismissal was for a valid cause; where abandonment is the defense, the employer must prove the employee clearly, voluntarily, and intentionally abandoned work. Petitioners failed; if evidence is in equipoise, the scales tilt in favor of the employee.
• Separation Pay in Lieu of Reinstatement — Article 279 entitles an unjustly dismissed employee to reinstatement, back wages, allowances, and other benefits, but the SC recognized strained relations and held petitioners liable for separation pay as found by the CA.

• “Abandonment is a matter of intention and cannot lightly be presumed from certain equivocal acts, especially during times of hardship.” — The SC used this to reject the employer’s abandonment defense and require proof of intent.
• “Thus, we have ruled in a series of cases that there are two elements that must concur in order for an act to constitute abandonment: (1) failure to report for work or absence without valid or justifiable reason; and (2) a clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship.” — This is the controlling two-element test applied to Aduna.
• “A charge of abandonment is totally inconsistent with the immediate filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal.” — The SC relied on this to hold that Aduna’s complaint negated any intent to abandon.
• “There is constructive dismissal when continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable, or unlikely.” — The SC used this definition to characterize the “lie low” instruction and lack of assignments as constructive dismissal.

• Samarca vs. Arc-Men Industries, Inc., 459 Phil. 506 (2003) — Cited for the rule that abandonment is a matter of intention and cannot lightly be presumed from equivocal acts, and that mere absence does not ipso facto amount to abandonment.
• Icawat vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 389 Phil. 441 (2000) — Cited for the two-element test of abandonment and the rule that a charge of abandonment is inconsistent with immediate filing of an illegal dismissal complaint.
• Megaforce Security and Allied Services, Inc. vs. Lactao, G.R. No. 160940, 21 July 2008, 559 SCRA 110 — Cited for the rule that employees who protest dismissal cannot be said to have abandoned work, that immediate filing negates abandonment, and for constructive dismissal.
• Philippine Wireless, Inc. (Pocketbell) vs. NLRC, 369 Phil. 907 (1999) — Cited for the definition of constructive dismissal.
• Ledesma & Co. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 316 Phil. 80 (1995) — Cited for the definition of constructive dismissal.
• Mobile Protective & Detective Agency vs. Ompad, 497 Phil. 621 (2005) — Cited for the employer’s burden in illegal dismissal and the equipoise rule favoring the employee.

• Article 279, Labor Code — Provides that an employee unjustly dismissed from work is entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges, full back wages inclusive of allowances, and other applicable benefits or their monetary equivalent from withholding of compensation up to actual reinstatement. The SC applied it but, due to strained relations, held petitioners liable for separation pay as found by the CA.
• Rule 45, Rules of Court — The Petition was filed under Rule 45; the SC resolved and denied it.