Tacloban Far East Marketing v. Sabulao
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Benjamin Sabulao was employed by Tacloban Far East Marketing Corporation and Francisco Y. Romualdez from 1989 until May 12, 2001, initially as a helper and later as a delivery truck driver. Sabulao alleged that he was dismissed after requesting a five-day leave of absence due to a death in his family, which was allegedly granted by Francisco Romualdez. The petitioners, however, claimed that Sabulao abandoned his work, citing frequent unexcused absences since March and April of 2001 and his alleged engagement in other businesses. Procedural History: Sabulao filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and money claims against the petitioners before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). The Labor Arbiter initially ruled in favor of the petitioners, finding that Sabulao had abandoned his work but ordering the payment of salary differentials and service incentive leave pay. Upon appeal, the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter's decision, finding that Sabulao was illegally dismissed and ordering the payment of backwages, separation pay, salary differentials, and service incentive leave pay. The NLRC later issued a resolution detailing the computation of the award. The petitioners then filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the NLRC's decision. The Court of Appeals also denied the petitioners' motion for reconsideration. The Petition: The petitioners are seeking a review of the Court of Appeals' decision through a petition for certiorari. They argue that the Court of Appeals erred in its appreciation of the evidence, overlooking facts that would have supported their claim of abandonment of employment, and that the court committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering the payment of backwages and other claims despite evidence of abandonment. The Supreme Court noted that the petitioners used the wrong mode of remedy, filing a petition for certiorari instead of a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, and that the petition was filed beyond the reglementary period for an appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in finding that private respondent did not abandon his employment, considering the propriety of the remedy, timeliness of the petition, and the evidence presented. Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction when it ordered the payment of backwages and other claims despite the petitioners' failure to substantiate their claim of abandonment and the belated raising of the 'field personnel' issue.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition for lack of merit. It affirmed the Decision of the Court of Appeals which upheld the National Labor Relations Commission's finding that petitioners were guilty of illegal dismissal.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the remedy, timeliness of the petition, and alleged grave abuse of discretion regarding abandonment: The Court noted the petitioners availed of the wrong remedy and filed the petition beyond the reglementary period, rendering the Court of Appeals' decision final and executory. Even if the petition were allowed, it would be dismissed for lack of grave abuse of discretion. In termination cases, the employer bears the burden of proving just and valid cause. To prove abandonment, the employer must establish both the employee's failure to report for work without valid reason and overt acts demonstrating the intention to sever the employer-employee relationship. On the petitioners' failure to substantiate their claim of abandonment and the belated raising of the 'field personnel' issue: The NLRC, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, correctly found that petitioners failed to substantiate their claim of abandonment, as no evidence was presented to prove the employee's clear intention to sever his employment through overt acts. The Court also noted that the issue of the employee being a field personnel was raised for the first time before the Court of Appeals and thus deserved no consideration.
Main Doctrine
Abandonment of work requires not only absence but also overt acts demonstrating a clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship. The burden of proof to establish abandonment rests on the employer.