Pare v. National Labor Relations Commission
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Antonio Pare was hired by ASIA RATTAN MANUFACTURING CO., INC. in February 1987. On November 9, 1992, Pare reported for work but was refused entry. He was asked to explain certain absences, which he did on November 25, 1992, citing his wife's nervous breakdown as the reason for absences on October 29, and November 3, 6, 7, and 9, 1992. His explanation was reportedly accepted, and reinstatement was ordered, but his supervisor refused to reinstate him, leading to a complaint for illegal dismissal. Procedural History: The company alleged that Pare abandoned his work, citing his failure to report on November 26, 1992, after being instructed to do so. Consequently, the company considered his job abandoned on December 1, 1992, and formally terminated his services on January 28, 1993. The Labor Arbiter found the dismissal illegal, ruling that the company failed to prove abandonment and ordered payment of service incentive leave, back wages, and separation pay. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed this, considering unauthorized absences as abandonment. Pare's motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: Pare filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Supreme Court, assailing the NLRC's Decision and Resolution.
Issue(s)
Whether petitioner Antonio Pare was illegally dismissed. Whether petitioner abandoned his work.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the NLRC dismissing the complaint for illegal dismissal and the Resolution denying reconsideration are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. ASIA RATTAN MANUFACTURING CO., INC. is ordered to reinstate petitioner Antonio Pare to his former or equivalent position without loss of seniority rights and to pay him full back wages, inclusive of allowances and other benefits or their monetary equivalent, computed from the time these were withheld up to the time of actual reinstatement. The case is REMANDED to the Labor Arbiter for the proper computation of back wages and unpaid salaries.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of illegal dismissal: The Court found that petitioner Antonio Pare was not illegally dismissed because the employer failed to prove just cause for termination. The employer's letter only required explanation for specific absences, which Pare provided with a justifiable reason (wife's nervous breakdown). Furthermore, the company could not use the same grounds for dismissal without violating the principle against double jeopardy, as established in Pepsi-Cola Distributors of the Philippines, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission. On the issue of abandonment of work: The Court found that petitioner Antonio Pare was not guilty of abandonment. Abandonment requires the concurrence of an intention to abandon and an overt act from which it may be inferred that the employee had no more interest in continuing his job. An employee who takes immediate steps to protect his employment cannot be said to have abandoned his work. The burden of proof rests on the employer to demonstrate the employee's clear and deliberate intent to discontinue employment without intention of returning, and mere absence is insufficient. Pare reported for work on November 9, 1992, only to be barred from the premises, which negates any intention to abandon. The overt acts of filing a complaint for illegal dismissal immediately after termination also demonstrate that Pare did not intend to sever his employment relationship. The filing of the complaint within the four-year statutory period for illegal dismissal actions negates any inference of permanent severance of ties.
Main Doctrine
Abandonment of work requires the concurrence of an intention to abandon and an overt act from which such intention may be inferred; mere absence is insufficient, especially when the employee takes steps to protect his employment and has a justifiable reason for the absence.