Harborview Restaurant v. Labro
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Reynaldo Labro, a cook at Harborview Restaurant since August 1985, reported for work on January 29, 1999, to find his position taken over by a co-employee upon instructions from the General Manager. He was told to go home as there was no more work for him. His brother, the restaurant's over-all supervisor, informed him that the reason for his dismissal was an alleged incident on January 20, 1999, where respondent supposedly took ground meat from the kitchen and gave it to a supplier. Respondent denied this, stating he only took a "throw away" bottle. Procedural History: Respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). Petitioner claimed respondent was not dismissed but had abandoned his work, citing a February 8, 1999 letter instructing him to report for work or be deemed to have abandoned his job. The labor arbiter ruled in favor of respondent, finding no proof of theft, lack of due process, and disregarding the abandonment claim. The NLRC reversed this, finding no dismissal and that respondent had abandoned his work. The Court of Appeals (CA) granted petitioner's certiorari petition, reversing the NLRC and finding that petitioner intended to dismiss and did dismiss respondent, and that there was no indication of abandonment. The CA also found that petitioner failed to observe due process. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: Petitioner insists the CA erred in reversing the NLRC, arguing the Ranara case relied upon by the CA is not analogous. Petitioner maintains respondent was not terminated but merely informed of an investigation for theft and was instructed to report to the manager, with his replacement being temporary. Petitioner reiterates its position that respondent abandoned his job.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Reynaldo Labro was illegally dismissed from employment and whether he abandoned his work. Whether the dismissal was authorized and valid. Whether petitioner observed due process in the dismissal of respondent.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals dated 19 November 2004 and 16 May 2005, respectively, are AFFIRMED. Costs against the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of illegal dismissal and abandonment: The Court is not convinced that respondent abandoned his work. The burden of proof rests upon the employer to show that a dismissal is for a just cause, and failure to do so means the dismissal is not justified. Petitioner failed to discharge this burden by adducing proof of respondent's clear and unequivocal intention to abandon his job. For abandonment to be a valid cause for dismissal, there must be a concurrence of intention to abandon and some overt act from which it may be inferred that the employee had no more interest in continuing his job. An employee who forthwith takes steps to protest his layoff cannot be said to have abandoned his work; otherwise, one could not possibly abandon his work and shortly thereafter vigorously pursue his complaint for illegal dismissal. In this case, save for the allegation that respondent did not submit to an investigation and his failure to return to work as instructed in the February 8, 1999 letter, petitioner presented no evidence showing respondent's intent to abandon his work. The filing of the illegal dismissal case a few days after his alleged dismissal signified respondent's desire to return to work, a factor that further militates against petitioner's theory of abandonment. Furthermore, there is no clear proof that respondent was instructed to submit to an investigation, nor is there proof that the letters supposedly sent by petitioner were ever received by respondent. Even assuming the February 8, 1999 letter was received, there is no reason for respondent to report to work after he had already filed a case for illegal dismissal, as it would be absurd to anticipate him to report for work under such circumstances. On the issue of who made the dismissal and authority: Petitioner insists that the chief cook and over-all supervisor (respondent's brother) did not terminate respondent and that their statements were not binding on petitioner as they lacked administrative powers. The Court is not persuaded. There is reason for respondent to believe the statements of the chief cook and the over-all supervisor, as they were his immediate superiors. The Court agrees with the Court of Appeals that the over-all supervisor, being respondent's brother, would not make a false representation to respondent that he was being dismissed from work. The Court also finds petitioner's argument that the dismissal was not made by the general manager to be unavailing, as this argument was already raised and ruled upon in the case of Ranara v. NLRC. In Ranara, the employer claimed a driver was not dismissed because the secretary who informed him of his dismissal had no authority. The Supreme Court rejected this defense, reasoning that the secretary would not have presumed to dismiss the driver had she not been authorized. Similarly, in the instant case, respondent was informed by his immediate superiors, the chief cook and his brother, that he was being terminated. The Court finds no reason why these two would give respondent the false impression that he was being dismissed, and is inclined to believe they had prior instruction or at least prior knowledge of the termination. Moreover, as previously discussed, the charge of abandonment does not square with the fact that a week after respondent's alleged dismissal, he filed a complaint with the NLRC. On the issue of due process: Although not explicitly detailed in the ratio, the Court of Appeals found that petitioner did not observe due process in dismissing respondent. This finding is implicitly affirmed by the Supreme Court's affirmation of the CA's decision. The failure to provide respondent with a clear notice of the charges against him, an opportunity to be heard, and a formal investigation, coupled with the lack of proof of theft and the questionable circumstances surrounding the alleged dismissal, all point to a violation of the employee's right to due process.
Main Doctrine
An employee who forthwith takes steps to protest his layoff cannot be said to have abandoned his work. For abandonment to be a valid cause for dismissal, there must be a concurrence of intention to abandon and some overt act from which it may be inferred that the employee had no more interest in continuing his job. The filing of an illegal dismissal case shortly after the alleged dismissal signifies the employee's desire to return to work, militating against the theory of abandonment.