2006 Labor Law Case Digests Held: The award of separation pay is required for dismissals due to

PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK VS. ANASTACIO D. causes specified under Articles 283 and 284 of the Labor Code, as well
ABAD as for illegal dismissals in which reinstatement is no longer feasible. On
G.R. No. 158045. February 28, 2005 the other hand, an employee dismissed for any of the just causes
enumerated under Article 282 of the Labor Code is not, as a rule,
Facts: Anastacio D. Abad was the senior Assistant Manager (Sales entitled to separation pay.
Head) of petitioner Philippine Commercial International Bank (PCI Bank As an exception, allowing the grant of separation pay or some other
now Equitable PCI Bank)], when he was dismissed from his work. Abad financial assistance to an employee dismissed for just causes is based
received a Memorandum from petitioner Bank concerning the irregular on equity. The Court has granted separation pay as a measure of social
clearing of PNB-Naval Check of Sixtu Chu, the Bank’s valued client. justice even when an employee has been validly dismissed, as long as
Abad submitted his Answer, categorically denying that he instructed his the dismissal was not due to serious misconduct or reflective of personal
subordinates to validate the out-of-town checks of Sixtu Chu presented integrity or morality.
for deposit or encashment as local clearing checks. During the actual
investigation conducted by petitioner Bank, several transactions BERNARDINO A. CAINGAT, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
violative of the Bank’s Policies and Rules and Regulations were COMMISSION, STA. LUCIA REALTY & DEV’T., INC., R.S.
uncovered by the Fact-Finding Committee. Consequently, the Fact- MAINTENANCE & SERVICES, INC., and R.S. NIGHT HAWK
Finding Officer of petitioner Bank issued another Memorandum to Abad SECURITY & INVESTIGATION AGENCY, INC
asking the latter to explain the newly discovered irregularities. Not G.R. No. 154308. March 10, 2005
satisfied with the explanations of Abad, petitioner Bank served another
Memorandum, terminating his employment effective immediately upon Facts: Petitioner Benardino A. Caingat was hired by respondent Sta.
receipt of the same. Thus, Abad instituted a Complaint for Illegal Lucia Realty and Development, Inc. (SLRDI) as the General Manager of
Dismissal. SLRDI’s sister companies, R.S. Night Hawk Security and Investigation
Agency, Inc., and R.S. Maintenance and Services Inc. both organized to
Issue: Whether or not awarding of separation pay equivalent to one-half service the malls and subdivisions owned by SLRDI. In connection with
(1/2) month’s pay for every year of service to respondent is gross, the this, he was allowed to use 10% of the total payroll of respondent R.S.
same being contrary to law and jurisprudence. Maintenance to defray operating expenses. Later, the Finance Manager
discovered that petitioner deposited company funds in the latter’s
personal account and used the funds to pay his credit card purchases, confidence, the management failed to observe fully the procedural
utility bills, trips abroad and acquisition of a lot in Laguna. Thus, requirement of due process for the termination of petitioner’s
complainant received a memorandum stating that upon verification of employment. Two notices should be sent to the employee. The
financial records, it was found that the latter have misappropriated respondents only sent the first notice, gleaned from the memorandum.
company funds in the sum of about P5, 000,000.00 and is hereby There was no second notice.
suspended from his duties as Manager of the stated companies. Without
conducting any investigation, respondent R.S. Maintenance filed a RETRENCHMENT; NOTICE REQUIREMENT;SEPARATION PAY
complaint for sum of money and damages with prayer for writ of
preliminary attachment. Petitioner in turn filed a complaint for illegal JAKA FOOD PROCESSING CORPORATION, vs. DARWIN PACOT,
dismissal against the respondents.  ROBERT PAROHINOG, DAVID BISNAR, MARLON DOMINGO,
RHOEL LESCANO and JONATHAN CAGABCAB.
Issue: Did respondents illegally dismiss petitioner? G.R. No. 151378. March 28, 2005

Held: As firmly entrenched in our jurisprudence, loss of trust and Facts: Respondents were earlier hired by petitioner JAKA Foods
confidence as a just cause for termination of employment is premised Processing Corporation until the latter terminated their employment
on the fact that an employee concerned holds a position where greater because the corporation was “in dire financial straits”. It is not disputed,
trust is placed by management and from whom greater fidelity to duty however, that the termination was effected without JAKA complying
is correspondingly expected. This includes managerial personnel with the requirement under Article 283 of the Labor Code regarding the
entrusted with confidence on delicate matters, such as the custody, service of a written notice upon the employees and the Department of
handling, or care and protection of the employer’s property. The Labor and Employment at least one (1) month before the intended date
betrayal of this trust is the essence of the offense for which an of termination. Respondents filed complaints for illegal dismissal,
employee is penalized. Management’s loss of trust and confidence on underpayment of wages and nonpayment of service incentive leave and
petitioner was well justified. Private respondents had every right to 13th month pay against JAKA. The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision
dismiss petitioner. Petitioner’s long period of disappearance from the declaring the termination illegal and ordering JAKA to reinstate
scene and departure for abroad before making a claim of illegal respondents with full backwages, and separation pay if reinstatement is
dismissal does not contribute to its credibility. not possible. The Court of Appeals reversed said decision and ordered
Nonetheless, while dismissal may truly be justified by loss of respondent JAKA to pay petitioners separation pay equivalent to one (1)
month salary, the proportionate 13th month pay and, in addition, full CUENCA ET AL.
backwages from the time their employment was terminated. G.R. No. 150478. April 15, 2005

Issue: What are the legal implications of a situation where an employee Facts: Hacienda Bino is a 236-hectare sugar plantation located at
is dismissed for cause but such dismissal was effected without the Negros Occidental, and represented in this case by Hortencia L. Starke,
employer’s compliance with the notice requirement under the Labor owner and operator of the said hacienda. The 76 individual respondents
Code? were part of the workforce of Hacienda Bino consisting of 220 workers,
performing various works, such as cultivation, planting of cane points,
Held: It was established that there was ground for respondents’ fertilization, watering, weeding, harvesting, and loading of harvested
dismissal, i.e., retrenchment, which is one of the authorized causes sugarcanes to cargo trucks. During the off-milling season, petitioner
enumerated under Article 283 of the Labor Code. Likewise, it is Starke issued an Order or Notice which stated, that all Hacienda
established that JAKA failed to comply with the notice requirement employees who signed in favor of CARP are expressing their desire to
under the same Article. Considering the factual circumstances in the get out of employment on their own volition. The respondents regarded
instant case, the Court deem it proper to fix the indemnity at P50, such notice as a termination of their employment. As a consequence,
000.00. The Court of Appeals have been in error when it ordered JAKA they filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The respondents as
to pay respondents separation pay equivalent to one (1) month salary complainants alleged that they are regular and permanent workers of
for every year of service. “In all cases of business closure or cessation the hacienda and that they were dismissed without just and lawful
of operation or undertaking of the employer, the affected employee is cause.
entitled to separation pay. This is consistent with the state policy of
treating labor as a primary social economic force, affording full Issue: Whether the respondents are regular or seasonal employees.
protection to its rights as well as its welfare. The exception is when the
closure of business or cessation of operations is due to serious business Held: The primary standard for determining regular employment is the
losses or financial reverses; duly proved, in which case, the right of reasonable connection between the particular activity performed by the
affected employees to separation pay is lost for obvious reasons.”  employee in relation to the usual trade or business of the employer.
There is no doubt that the respondents were performing work necessary
HACIENDA BINO/HORTENCIA STARKE, INC./HORTENCIA L. and desirable in the usual trade or business of an employer. Hence,
STARKE VS. CANDIDO they can properly be classified as regular employees. For respondents to
be excluded from those classified as regular employees, it is not enough
that they perform work or services that are seasonal in nature. They Issue: Whether or not the club’s right to terminate its employees for an
must have been employed only for the duration of one season. While authorized cause, particularly to secure its continued viability and
the records sufficiently show that the respondents’ work in the hacienda existence is valid.
was seasonal in nature, there was, however, no proof that they were
hired for the duration of one season only. Held: When petitioner decided to cease operating its F & B Department
and open the same to a concessionaire, it did not reduce the number of
ALABANG COUNTRY CLUB INC., ET AL. VS. NATIONAL LABOR personnel assigned thereat. It terminated the employment of all
RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL. personnel assigned at the department.
G.R. No. 157611. August 9, 2005 Petitioner’s failure to prove that the closure of its F & B Department was
due to substantial losses notwithstanding, the Court finds that individual
Facts: Petitioner Alabang Country Club Inc. (ACCI), is a stock, non- respondents were dismissed on the ground of closure or cessation of an
profit corporation that operates and maintains a country club and undertaking not due to serious business losses or financial reverses,
various sports and recreational facilities for the exclusive use of its which is allowed under Article 283 of the Labor Code. The closure of
members. Sometime in 1993, Francisco Ferrer, then President of ACCI, operation of an establishment or undertaking not due to serious
requested its Internal Auditor, to conduct a study on the profitability of business losses or financial reverses includes both the complete
ACCI’s Food and Beverage Department (F & B Department). cessation of operations and the cessation of only part of a company’s
Consequently, report showed that from 1989 to 1993, F & B activities.
Department had been incurring substantial losses. Realizing that it was
no longer profitable for ACCI to maintain its own F & B Department, the ELEMENTS OF ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT IN LARGE SCALE
management decided to cease from operating the department and to PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. ROSE DUJUA, ET AL.
open the same to a contractor, such as a concessionaire, which would G.R. Nos. 149014-16. February 5, 2004
be willing to operate its own food and beverage business within the
club. Thus, ACCI sent its F & B Department employee’s individual letters Facts: Ramon Dujua, his mother Rose, his aunt, Editha Singh, and his
informing them that their services were being terminated and that they uncle, Guillermo Samson were charged with illegal recruitment in large
would be paid separation pay. The Union in turn, with the authority of scale. Only Ramon was arrested. Four testified against Ramon Dujua. All
individual respondents, filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. of them were promised work abroad upon payment of fees but they
were not actually deployed. Ramon pleaded not guilty and denied the license or authority.
allegations that he was a recruiter. Third, it has been alleged and proven that Dujua undertook the
recruitment of more than three persons.
Issue: Whether or not illegal recruitment in large scale was committed
by Raon Dujua, et al. CBA; REFUSAL TO RENEGOTIATE ECONOMIC PROVISIONS OF THE CBA
BY THE MANAGEMENT CONSTITUTES ULP
Held: The essential elements of the crime of illegal recruitment in large
scale are: 1) The accused engages in acts of recruitment and placement GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION VS. HON. COURT OF APPEALS
of workers defined under Article 13 (b) or in any prohibited activities G.R. No. 146728. February 11, 2004
under Article 34 of the Labor Code; 2) the accused has not complied
with the guidelines issued by the Secretary of Labor and Employment Facts: General Milling Corporation employed 190 workers. All the
particularly with respect to the securing of a license or an authority to employees were members of a union which is a duly certified bargaining
recruit and deploy workers either locally or overseas; and 3) the agent. The GMC and the union entered into a collective bargaining
accused commits the unlawful acts against three or more persons agreement which included the issue of representation that is effective
individually or as a group. for a term of three years which will expire on November 30, 1991. On
All three elements were established beyond reasonable doubt. November 29, 1991, a day before the expiration of the CBA, the union
First, the testimonies of the complaining witnesses satisfactorily proved sent GMC a proposed CBA, with a request that a counter proposal be
that Dujua promised them employment and assured them of placement submitted within ten days. on October 1991, GMC received collective
overseas. All of them identified Dujua as the person who recruited them and individual letters from the union members stating that they have
for employment abroad. As against the positive and categorical withdrawn from their union membership. On December 19, 1991, the
testimonies of the three complainants, Dujua’s mere denials cannot union disclaimed any massive disaffiliation of its union members. On
prevail. As long as the prosecution is able to establishthrough credible January 13, 1992, GMC dismissed an employee who is a union member.
testimonial evidence that Dujua has engaged in illegal recruitment , a The union protected the employee and requested GMC to submit to the
conviction for the offense can very well be justified. grievance procedure provided by the CBA, but GMC argued that there
Second, Dujua did not have any license or authority to recruit persons was no basis to negotiate with a union which is no longer existing. The
for overseas work, as shown by the Certification issued by the POEA. union then filed a case with the Labor Arbiter but the latter ruled that
Neither did his employer, World Pack Travel and Tours, possess such there must first be a certification election to determine if the union still
enjoys the support of the workers. 1993 by 13 union members signifying their resignation from the union
clearly indicated that GMC exerted pressure on the employees. We
Issue: Whether or not GMC is guilty of unfair labor practice for violating agree with the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that the ill-timed letters of
its duty to bargain collectively and/or for interfering with the right of its resignation from the union members indicate that GMC interfered with
employees to self-organization.  the right of its employee to self-organization.

Held: GMC is guilty of unfair labor practice when it refused to negotiate UNIONS; UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE; STRIKES; ILLEGAL
with the union upon its request for the renegotiation of the economic DISMISSAL
terms of the CBA on November 29, 1991. the union’s proposal was
submitted within the prescribed 3-year period from the date of STAMFORD MARKETING CORP., ET AL. VS. JOSEPHINE JULIAN,
effectivity of the CBA. It was obvious that GMC had no valid reason to ET AL.
refuse to negotiate in good faith with the union. The refusal to send G.R. No. 145496. February 24, 2004
counter proposal to the union and to bargain anew on the economic
terms of the CBA is tantamount to an unfair labor practice under Article Facts: On November 2, 1994, Zoilo de la Cruz, president of the
248 of the Labor Code. Philippine Agricultural Commercial and Industrial Workers’ Union
Under Article 252 of the Labor Code, both parties are required to (PACIWU-TUCP), sent a letter to Rosario Apacible, treasurer and general
perform their mutual obligation to meet and convene promptly and manager of Stamford Marketing Corporation, GSP Manufacturing
expeditiously in good faith for the purpose of negotiating an agreement. Corporation, Giorgio Antonio Marketing Corporation, Clementine
The union lived up to this obligation when it presented proposals for a Marketing Corporation and Ultimate Concept Phils., Inc. The letter
new CBA to GMC within 3 years from the effectivity of the original CBA. informed her that the rank-and-file employees of the said companies
But GMC failed in its duty under Article 252. What it did was to devise a had formed the Apacible Enterprises Employee’s Union-PACIWU-TUCP
flimsy excuse, by questioning the existence of the union and the status and demanded that it be recognized. After such notice, the following
of its membership to prevent any negotiation. It bears stressing that the three cases arose:
procedure in collective bargaining prescribed by the Code is mandatory In the First Case, Josephine Julian, president of PACIWU-TUCP, Jacinta
because of the basic interest of the state in ensuring lasting industrial Tejada and Jecina Burabod, a Board Member and a member of the said
peace. union, were dismissed. They filed a suit with the Labor Arbiter alleging
The Court of Appeals found that the letters between February to June, that their employer had not paid them with their overtime pay, holiday
pay/premiums, rest day premium, 13th month pay for the year 1994 employment. It also failed to prove the necessity of the cash deposit of
salaries for services actually rendered, and that illegal deduction had P2,000 and failed to furnish written notice of dismissal to any
been made without their consent from their salaries for a cash bond. complainants. Further, it failed to prove payments of the amounts being
Stamford alleged that the three were dismissed for not reporting for claimed.
work when required to do so and for not giving notice or explanation Second Case: The strike was illegal and the officers of the union have
when asked. lost their employment status, thus terminating their employment with
In the Second Case, PACIWU-TUCP filed, on behalf of 50 employees GSP. GSP is however ordered to reinstate the complainants who were
allegedly dismissed illegally for union membership by the petitioners, a members of the union without backwages, save some employees
case for unfair labor practice against GSP which denied such averments. specified. It was established that the union was not registered, and thus
GSP countered that the BLR did not list Apacible Enterprises Employee’s had staged an illegal strike. The officers of the union should be liable
Union as a local chapter of PACIWU or TUCP. Thus, the strike that said and dismissed, but the members should not, as they acted in good faith
union organized after the GSP refused to negotiate with them was illegal in the belief that their actions were within legal bounds.
and that they refused to return to work when asked. Third Case: GSP was ordered to pay each complainant their claims, as
The Third Case was filed for claims of the 50 employees dismissed in computed by each individual. All other claims were dismissed for lack of
the second case. Petitioner corporations, however, maintained that they merit. The Labor Arbiter found petitioners liable for salary differentials
have been paying complainants the wages/salaries mandated by law and other monetary claims for petitioners’ failure to sufficiently prove
and that the complaint should be dismissed in view of the execution of that it had paid the same to complainants as required by law. It was
quitclaims and waivers by the private respondents. also ordered to return the cash deposits of the complainants, citing the
The Labor Arbiter ordered the three cases consolidated as the issues same reasons as in the First Case.
were interrelated and the respondent corporations were under one On appeal, the NLRC affirmed the decision in the First and Third Cases,
management. but set aside the judgment of the Second Case for further proceedings
First Case: The dismissal was illegal and Stamford was ordered to in view of the factual issues involved.
reinstate the complainants as well as pay the backwages and other On May 14, 1996, a Petition to Declare the Strike Illegal was filed which
benefits claimed. It was held that the reassignment and transfer of the was decided in favor of Stamford, upholding the dismissal of the union
complainants were forms of interference in the formation and officers. The officers made no prior notice to strike, no vote was taken
membership of a union, an unfair labor practice. Stamford also failed to among union members, and the issue involved was non-strikable, a
substantiate their claim that the said employees abandoned their demand for salary increases
On elevation to the appellate court, it was ruled that the officers should terminate the employment of a union officer but mere participation is
be given separation pay, and that Jacina Burabod and the rest of the not sufficient ground for termination of union members. Thus, absent
members should be reinstated without loss of seniority, plus backwages. clear and substantial proof, rank-and-file union members may not be
It provided for the payment of the backwages despite the illegality of terminated. If he is terminated, he is entitled to reinstatement.
the strike because the dismissals were done prior to the strike. Such is The Court affirmed the ruling of the CA on the illegal dismissal of the
considered an unfair labor practice as there was lack of due process and union members, as there was non-observance of due process
valid cause. Thus, the dismissed employees were still entitled to requirements and union busting by management. It also affirmed that
backwages and reinstatement, with exception to the union officers who the charge of abandonment against Julian and Tejada were without
may be given separation pay due to strained relations with their credence. It reversed the ruling that the dismissal was unfair labor
employers. practice as there was nothing on record to show that Julian and Tejada
were discouraged from joining any union. The dismissal of the union
Issues: (1) Whether or not the respondents’ union officers and officers for participation in an illegal strike was upheld. However, union
members were validly and legally dismisses from employment officers also must be given the required notices for terminating
considering the illegality of the strike. employment, and Article 264 of the Labor Code does not authorize
(2) Whether or not the respondents’ union officers were entitled to immediate dismissal of union officers participating in an illegal strike. No
backwages, separation pay and reinstatement, respectively.  such requisite notices were given to the union officers.
The Court upheld the appellate court’s ruling that the union members,
Held: (1) The termination of the union officers was legal under Article for having participated in the strike in good faith and in believing that
264 of the Labor Code as the strike conducted was illegal and that their actions were within the bound of the law meant only to secure
illegal acts attended the mass action. Holding a strike is a right that economic benefits for themselves, were illegally dismissed hence
could be availed of by a legitimate labor organization, which the union is entitled to reinstatement and backwages.
not. Also, the mandatory requirements of following the procedures in (2) The Supreme Court declared the dismissal of the union officers as
conducting a strike under paragraph (c) and (f) of Article 263 were not valid hence, the award of separation pay was deleted. However, as
followed by the union officers. sanction for non-compliance with the notice requirements for a lawful
Article 264 provides for the consequences of an illegal strike, as well as termination, backwages were awarded to the union officers computed
the distinction between officers and members who participated therein. from the time they were dismissed until the final entry of the judgment.
Knowingly participating in an illegal strike is a sufficient ground to
JURISDICTION OF THE LABOR ARBITERS AND THE NLRC employer-employee relation, but from a quasi-delict or tort. Under
Article 217 (a)(4) of the Labor Code which allows an award of damages
EVELYN TOLOSA VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS incident to an employer-employee relation, the damages awarded were
COMMISSION not proper as she is not an employee, but merely the wife of an
G.R. No. 149578. April 10, 2003 employee.

Facts: Captain Virgilio Tolosa was master of the vessel M/V Donna Issues: (1) Whether or not the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC had
owned by Quana-Kaiun, and was hired through its manning agent, Asia jurisdiction over petitioner’s action.
Bulk Transport Phils., Inc. (Asia Bulk). During channeling activities upon (2) Whether or not the monetary award granted by the Labor arbiter
the vessel’s departure from Yokohama on November 6, 1992, Capt. has already reached finality.
Tolosa was drenched with rainwater. Subsequently, he contracted fever
on November 11 which was later on accompanied by loose bowel Held: (1) The Court affirmed that the claim for damages was filed not
movement for the succeeding 12 days. His condition was reported to for claiming damages under the Labor Code but under the Civil Code.
Asia Bulk and the US Coast Guard Headquarters in Hawaii on November The Court was convinced that the allegations were based on a quasi-
15. However, before he could be evacuated, he died on November 18, delict or tort. Also, she had claimed for actual damages for loss of
1992. earning capacity based on a life expectancy of 65 years, which is
Evelyn Tolosa, the widow, filed a complaint before the POEA for cognizable under the Civil Code and can be recovered in an action based
damages against Pedro Garate, Chief Mate of the vessel, Mario Asis, on a quasi-delict. Though damages under a quasi-delict may be
Second Mate, Asia Bulk and Quana-Kaiun. The case was transferred to recoverable under the jurisdiction of labor arbiters and the NLRC, the
the NLRC. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the widow, awarding relief must be based on an action that has reasonable casual connection
actual damages plus legal interest, as well as moral and exemplary with the Labor Code, labor statutes or CBA’s. It must be noted that a
damages and attorney’s fees. On appeal to the NLRC, the decision of worker’s loss of earning capacity and backlisting are not to be equated
the Labor Arbiter was vacated and the complaint was dismissed for lack with wages, overtime compensation or separation pay, and other labor
of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action pursuant to the benefits that are generally cognized in labor disputes. The loss of
provisions of the Labor Code, as amended. Sustaining the NLRC, the CA earning capacity is a relief or claim resulting from a quasi-delict or a
ruled that the labor commission had no jurisdiction over the subject similar cause within the realm of Civil Law. In the present case, Evelyn
matter of the action filed by petitioner. Her cause did not arise from an Tolosa’s claim for damages is not related to any other claim under
Article 217, other labor statutes, or CBA’s. She cannot anchor her claim against respondent and its owner. During the pendency of the
for damages to Article 161 of the Labor Code, which does not grant or complaint, petitioner’s 30-day suspension ended. Consequently,
specify a claim or relief. This provision is only a safety and health respondent, in a letter, directed petitioner to report for work
standard under Book IV of the same Code. The enforcement of this immediately. However, he refused, prompting respondent to send him a
labor standard rests with the labor secretary. It is not the NLRC but the Notice to Terminate, directing him to submit, within 5 days, a written
regular courts that have jurisdiction over action for damages, in which explanation why he should not be dismissed from the service for
the employer-employee relation is merely incidental, and in which the abandonment of work. For his part, petitioner submitted a letter-reply
cause of action proceeds from a different source of obligation such as a explaining that because of the pendency of his complaint for illegal
tort. suspension with the Labor arbiter, he could not report for work.
(2) On the finality of the award, the Court ruled that issues not raised in Respondent, finding the petitioner’s written explanation insufficient,
the court below cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. Thus, the decided to terminate his services via a Notice of Termination.
issue being not brought to the attention of the Court of Appeals first, Consequently, petitioner filed an amended complaint for illegal
this cannot be considered by the Supreme Court. It would be dismissal.
tantamount to denial of the right to due process against the
respondents to do so. Issue: Whether or not petitioner abandoned his work.

ABANDONMENT OF WORK; REQUISITES Held: To constitute abandonment, two elements must concur: (1) The
failure to report for work or absence without valid or justifiable reason,
SAMUEL SAMARCA VS. ARC-MEN INDUSTRIES, INC. and (2) a clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship
G.R. No. 146118. September 29, 2003 manifested by some overt acts. Mere absence is not sufficient. It is the
employer who has the burden of proof to show a deliberate and justified
Facts: Samuel Samarca was employed as a laborer by Arc-Men refusal of the employee to resume his employment without any
Industries, Inc. On September 26, 1993, petitioner filed an application intention of returning.
for an emergency leave of absence on account of his son’s The above twin essential requirements for abandonment to exist are not
hospitalization. Upon his return for work, petitioner was immediately present in the case at bar. Petitioner’s absence is not without a
served with a notice of respondent’s order suspending him for 30 days. justifiable reason. It must be recalled that upon receipt of the Notice to
Feeling aggrieved, petitioner filed a complaint for illegal suspension Terminate by reason of abandonment, petitioner sent respondent a
letter explaining that he could not go back to work because of the Issue: Whether or not petitioners were illegally dismissed.
pendency of his complaint for illegal suspension. And immediately after
he was dismissed for abandonment of work, he lost no time to amend Held: The dismissal should be upheld because it was established that
his complaint to illegal dismissal. This alone negates any intention on the petitioners abandoned their jobs to work for another company.
his part to forsake his work. It is a settled doctrine that the filing of a Private respondent, however, did not follow the notice requirements and
complaint for illegal dismissal is inconsistent with the charge of instead argued that sending notices to the last known addresses would
abandonment, for an employee who takes steps to protest his dismissal have been useless because they did not reside there anymore.
cannot by logic be said to have abandoned his work. Unfortunately for the private respondent, this is not a valid excuse
ABANDONMENT OF WORK; PROCEDURE FOR TERMINATING AN because the law mandates the twin notice requirements to the
EMPLOYEE; ILLEGAL DISMISSAL employee’s last known address. Thus, it should be held liable for non-
compliance with the procedural requirements of due process.
AGABON VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION When the dismissal is for a just cause, the lack of statutory due process
G.R. No. 158693. November 17, 2004 should not nullify the dismissal, or render it illegal, or ineffectual.
However, the employer should indemnify the employee for the violation
Facts: Private respondent Riviera Home Improvements, Inc. is engaged of his statutory rights.
in the business of selling and installing ornamental and construction
materials. It employed petitioner Virgilio Agabon and Jenny Agabon as
gypsum board and cornice installers on January 2, 1992 until February
23, 1999 when they were dismissed for abandonment of work.
Petitioners then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter
rendered a decision declaring the dismissal illegal. On appeal, the NLRC
reversed the decision because it found that the petitioners had
abandoned their work and were not entitled to backwages and
separation pay. The Court of Appeals in turn ruled that the dismissal of
the petitioners was not illegal because they had abandoned their
employment.