Nueva Ecija I Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Minister of Labor and Employment
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Private respondent Oscar S. Angeles, employed by petitioner Nueva Ecija I Electric Cooperative, Inc. (NEECOI) since 1973 and holding the position of Project Engineer, was sought to be terminated by NEECOI on grounds of direct insubordination, abandonment of work, conduct unbecoming of an official, refusal to report for work, and habitual tardiness. Angeles opposed the application, asserting the grounds were false and inspired by ulterior motives. Procedural History: The Regional Director denied NEECOI's application for clearance to terminate Angeles and ordered his reinstatement with full backwages. The Minister of Labor and Employment affirmed this order upon appeal by NEECOI. The Petition: NEECOI filed a petition for review on certiorari (treated as a petition for certiorari) assailing the Minister's order, imputing errors in finding no abandonment and in ordering reinstatement with backwages when NEECOI claimed Angeles was not dismissed but had stopped reporting for work.
Issue(s)
Whether the public respondent erred in finding that private respondent did not abandon his work and refuse to report for duty. Whether the public respondent gravely erred in ordering the petitioner to reinstate private respondent to his former position with full backwages when petitioner claimed private respondent was not dismissed or suspended.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED and the decision of public respondent dated 2 September 1980 is AFFIRMED with the modification that backwages shall be limited to three (3) years only. Costs against petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of abandonment and refusal to report for duty: The Court found that NEECOI's evidence for abandonment, consisting of security guard reports on Angeles' attendance, was insufficient. These reports were not official daily time records signed by Angeles and were considered self-serving. The Court noted that Angeles was a managerial employee, not required to fill out daily time records. Furthermore, NEECOI's act of paying Angeles' salary from February 26, 1979, to March 15, 1979, during which period he was allegedly absent, contradicted the claim of abandonment. The affidavit of Engr. Raul M. Mangahas, attesting to Angeles' coordination from February 26, 1979, to April 3, 1979, was considered more convincing proof against abandonment. The Court reiterated that for abandonment to be a valid cause for termination, there must be a deliberate, unjustified refusal to resume employment, accompanied by overt acts showing the employee's intent not to work anymore, which was not sufficiently proven by NEECOI. Angeles' letters indicating his intention to report for duty also disproved the claim of refusal to work. On the issue of reinstatement with backwages despite alleged non-dismissal: The Court held that NEECOI's refusal to accept Angeles back when he reported to the General Manager, under the pretext of awaiting the Ministry of Labor and Employment's clearance, had the actual effect of terminating his employment. At the time of the termination, the law required prior clearance from the Minister of Labor and Employment before an employee could be dismissed. Since no clearance was granted when NEECOI refused to accept Angeles, this refusal constituted an illegal dismissal. Therefore, the order for reinstatement and payment of backwages was deemed proper and not a grave abuse of discretion, as it was in accordance with the law then in effect, which provided for such remedies in cases of illegal dismissal.
Main Doctrine
For abandonment to constitute a valid cause for termination of employment, there must be a deliberate, unjustified refusal of the employee to resume his employment, which must be clearly shown. Mere absence is not sufficient; it must be accompanied by overt acts unerringly pointing to the fact that the employee simply does not want to work anymore. Furthermore, an employer cannot rely solely on security guard reports for termination due to absence; official daily time records and proof of payment of salary during the alleged period of abandonment are more convincing.