Jones v. National Labor Relations Commission
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner George D. Jones, employed by Abbott Laboratories (Phils.), Inc. (ABBOTT) since February 1971 and promoted to District Sales Manager, was receiving a substantial salary and benefits. He was a recipient of awards for loyalty and performance. On August 3, 1989, he applied for and was granted vacation leave from September 11 to 28, 1989. Shortly before its expiration, he applied for sick leave starting September 29, 1989, citing hypertension, supported by a medical certificate. On October 10, 1989, ABBOTT disapproved his sick leave application and directed him to report within five days. Petitioner failed to report. On October 25, 1989, ABBOTT sent another letter warning him of dismissal for abandonment if he failed to report on October 27, 1989. ABBOTT terminated his services on October 27, 1989. Meanwhile, on October 20, 1989, petitioner, from Canada, informed ABBOTT that he would report in early December 1989, as advised by his physician to rest and undergo further medical examination. Procedural History: Upon returning to the Philippines and being informed of his dismissal, petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with damages. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of ABBOTT, sustaining the dismissal. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), on appeal, initially reversed the Labor Arbiter, finding no abandonment. However, upon motion for reconsideration, the NLRC reversed itself, ruling that petitioner was guilty of abandonment for going on sick leave without justifiable reasons. Petitioner's subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied, leading to the present petition. The Petition: Petitioner insists he did not abandon his job and protests his dismissal without due process, claiming he was abroad for medical examination due to hypertension and cardiovascular problems. Respondents maintain that petitioner intended to migrate, feigned illness to prolong his stay in Canada, and was guilty of dishonesty and gross misconduct for lying about his ailment. They also assert he was given opportunities to explain and report back to work.
Issue(s)
Whether petitioner abandoned his employment. Whether petitioner was dismissed without due process.
Ruling
The Court ruled in favor of the petitioner. The resolutions of the National Labor Relations Commission were reversed and set aside. Private respondents were directed to reinstate petitioner George D. Jones to his former position immediately with back wages and without loss of seniority rights and other benefits.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of abandonment of employment: The Court held that abandonment requires a clear, deliberate, and unjustified refusal to resume employment, not merely absence. The fact that petitioner forthwith filed a complaint for illegal dismissal upon learning of his termination belies any intention to abandon his job. An employee who takes steps to protest their lay-off cannot logically be said to have abandoned their work. Petitioner's communication from Canada stating his intention to report in December 1989 demonstrated that his absence was temporary and reflected his intention to continue working. The reasons cited by ABBOTT for disapproving the sick leave application were deemed petty and defied logic. The Court emphasized that an employee has the right to avail of sick leave for adequate medical treatment, and the employer could have granted the leave and fixed its duration. The penalty of dismissal was considered too harsh and severe, especially given petitioner's long years of dedicated service, awards, and commendations, with no prior incidents questioning his loyalty. On the issue of due process: The Court found that the twin requirements of notice and hearing, essential elements of due process, were not met. The employer must furnish the employee with two written notices: one apprising them of the cause for termination and another informing them of the decision to dismiss. ABBOTT's letter of October 10, 1989, merely disapproved the sick leave and directed the petitioner to report, without stating the cause for termination. The letter of October 25, 1989, which stated the cause, was sent from Manila to Bacolod City, and it was unreasonable to expect petitioner to receive it and report for work within two days. The dismissal of petitioner without affording him ample opportunity to adequately present his side was a glaring violation of his right to due process.
Main Doctrine
Abandonment of employment requires a clear, deliberate, and unjustified refusal to resume employment, not mere absence. An employee who files a complaint for illegal dismissal promptly after learning of their termination cannot be deemed to have abandoned their job. Furthermore, dismissal without affording the employee ample opportunity to be heard and defend themselves violates due process.