Tamblot Security & General Services, Inc. vs. Item

Abandonment of work is not established where the employer fails to prove that the employee actually received notices to report for duty, and where the employee immediately files a complaint for illegal dismissal, as the filing of such complaint constitutes proof of the employee's desire to return to work and negates any intention to sever the employment relationship.

Petitioner Tambot Security & General Services, Inc. employed respondents as security guards and deployed them at Marcela Mall. Following a misunderstanding between respondent Florencio Item and the mall's security officer, Item was recalled and relieved from duty. Upon consulting a lawyer who informed him that he was underpaid, Item shared this information with his co-respondents, prompting them to file a letter-complaint with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) for labor standards benefits. During a meeting regarding the case, petitioner's representatives attempted to convince the respondents to withdraw their complaint, but they refused. Consequently, petitioner relieved the remaining respondents from their duties at Marcela Mall.

• Employment and Deployment: Petitioner employed respondents as security guards and assigned them to Marcela Mall.
• The Incident and Reliefs: Respondent Florencio Item had a misunderstanding with the security officer of Marcela Mall, leading to his recall and relief from duty. After consulting a lawyer who informed him that he was underpaid, Item shared this with co-respondents.
• DOLE Complaint and Retaliatory Reliefs: Respondents filed a letter-complaint with the DOLE for labor standards benefits. During a meeting for this case, petitioner's representatives tried to convince respondents to withdraw their complaint. Upon their refusal, petitioner relieved the other respondents from their duties at Marcela Mall.
• Filing of Illegal Dismissal Case: Respondents withdrew their DOLE complaint and filed complaints for illegal dismissal before the Labor Arbiter.
• Employer's Defense: Petitioner claimed it did not dismiss respondents; rather, respondents refused to return to work despite letters notifying them of new assignments and directing them to report to the office, constituting abandonment of work.
• Labor Arbiter Ruling: The Labor Arbiter dismissed respondents' complaint.
• NLRC Ruling: The NLRC ruled the complaint was prematurely filed as respondents were on reserve status (six months not lapsed). However, only Item and Palma were deemed to have validly appealed (having signed the Verification and Certification), limiting the award to them.
• Court of Appeals Ruling: The CA granted respondents' petition, declared the twelve other respondents to have validly appealed, found constructive dismissal, and ordered backwages, refund of cash bonds, and attorney's fees.

• Abandonment of Work: Petitioner maintained that it did not constructively dismiss respondents; rather, respondents were guilty of abandonment of work for refusing to return to work despite letters notifying them of new assignments.
• Prematurity of Complaint: Petitioner argued that respondents could still be considered on reserve status at the time of filing, making the complaint for illegal dismissal premature.
• Lack of Constructive Dismissal: Petitioner contended that there was no constructive dismissal as respondents were the ones who refused to report for duty.

• Constructive Dismissal: Respondents argued that they were constructively dismissed when petitioner relieved them from their duties at Marcela Mall without valid cause after they refused to withdraw their DOLE complaint.
• Validity of Appeal: Respondents maintained that the twelve other respondents (besides Item and Palma) validly took their appeal with the NLRC.
• No Abandonment: Respondents argued that they did not abandon their work; they immediately filed complaints for illegal dismissal to protest their dismissal.

• Abandonment vs. Constructive Dismissal: Whether respondents were constructively dismissed or guilty of abandonment of work.
• Burden of Proof: Whether petitioner discharged its burden of proving that respondents received notices to report for new assignments.
• Effect of Filing Illegal Dismissal Complaint: Whether the immediate filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal negates a charge of abandonment of work.
• Validity of Appeal of Other Respondents: Whether the twelve other respondents validly perfected their appeal before the NLRC.

• Abandonment Not Established: Abandonment was not established because petitioner failed to present sufficient evidence proving that respondents actually received the notices to report for duty. Without proof of receipt, it cannot be said that respondents failed to report for work.
• Constructive Dismissal Established: Constructive dismissal was established where petitioner relieved respondents from their duties without valid cause and failed to prove that they were actually notified of new assignments, effectively placing respondents in a situation where they had no choice but to resign.
• Filing of Complaint Negates Abandonment: The immediate filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal negates any charge of abandonment of work, as the filing constitutes proof of the employee's desire to return to work and negates any intention to sever the employment relationship.
• Affirmance of Monetary Awards: The Court affirmed the award of backwages, refund of cash bonds, and attorney's fees, with modification adding interest of six percent (6%) per annum from finality of the decision until full satisfaction.

• Abandonment of Work — Abandonment requires: (1) failure to report for work or absence without valid or justifiable reason; and (2) a clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship manifested by some overt acts. The burden of proof rests on the employer to show unjustified refusal to return to work. Mere allegations of failure to report are insufficient; overt acts unerringly pointing to the fact that the employee simply does not want to work anymore are required.
• Constructive Dismissal — Constructive dismissal exists when an employee is placed in a situation where he has no choice but to resign. Relieving an employee from duty without valid cause and without actual notice of reassignment constitutes constructive dismissal.
• Effect of Immediate Filing of Illegal Dismissal Complaint — Employees who take steps to protest their dismissal cannot logically be said to have abandoned their work. A charge of abandonment is totally inconsistent with the immediate filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal. The filing thereof is proof enough of one's desire to return to work.
• Rule 45 Review in Labor Cases — In petitions for review on certiorari of labor decisions, the Supreme Court's jurisdiction is limited to reviewing errors of law or jurisdiction. The Court cannot analyze or weigh evidence anew as the evaluation of facts is best left to the lower courts. The review is limited to: (1) ascertaining the correctness of the CA's decision in finding the presence or absence of grave abuse of discretion by examining whether the CA correctly determined that all evidence was considered and supports the findings; and (2) deciding any other jurisdictional error in the interpretation or application of the law.

• "x x x for abandonment of work to exist, it is essential (1) that the employee must have failed to report for work or must have been absent without valid or justifiable reason; and (2) that there must have been a clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship manifested by some overt acts. Absence must be accompanied by overt acts unerringly pointing to the fact that the employee simply does not want to work anymore. And the burden of proof to show that there was unjustified refusal to go back to work rests on the employer."
• "The failure to firmly establish that respondents were actually notified or informed that they were being ordered to report back for duty is fatal to petitioner's cause. Without proof that respondents were aware of their new assignments or were being ordered to report back for duty, it cannot be said that the employee failed to report for work."
• "Employees who take steps to protest their dismissal cannot logically be said to have abandoned their work. A charge of abandonment is totally inconsistent with the immediate filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal. The filing thereof is proof enough of one's desire to return to work, thus negating any suggestion of abandonment."

• Protective Maximum Security Agency, Inc. v. Fuentes, G.R. No. 169303, February 11, 2015 — Controlling precedent reiterating the twin requisites for abandonment of work and the burden of proof on the employer.
• Fernandez v. Newfield Staff Solutions, Inc., G.R. No. 201979, July 10, 2013 — Cited for the doctrine that immediate filing of illegal dismissal complaint negates abandonment.
• Stanley Fine Furniture v. Gallano, G.R. No. 190486, November 26, 2014 — Controlling precedent defining the limited scope of review under Rule 45 in labor cases.
• Gan v. Galderma Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 177167, January 17, 2013 — Cited for the rule that in petitions for review on certiorari, jurisdiction is limited to reviewing errors of law or jurisdiction.

• Rule 45, Rules of Court — Governs petitions for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court, limited to questions of law.
• Article 279, Labor Code — Governs security of tenure and remedies in cases of illegal dismissal (implied in the discussion of backwages and reinstatement).

Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Martin S. Villarama, Bienvenido L. Reyes, and Francis H. Jardeleza.