Tamblot Security & General Services, Inc. v. Item
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondents, employed as security guards by petitioner Tamblot Security & General Services, Inc. and deployed at Marcela Mall, were initially relieved from duty. One respondent, Florencio Item, was recalled due to a misunderstanding with the mall's security officer. Upon learning from legal counsel that he was also underpaid, Item shared this information with his co-respondents. This led to a collective complaint filed with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) for labor standards benefits. When petitioner's representatives attempted to persuade them to withdraw the complaint, the respondents refused. Consequently, all respondents were subsequently relieved from their duties at Marcela Mall. Procedural History: Following their relief from duty, the respondents withdrew their complaint with the DOLE and instead filed complaints for illegal dismissal before the MERC. The Labor Arbiter dismissed their complaint. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), in its Decision dated March 30, 2006, ruled that the complaint for illegal dismissal was prematurely filed, as the respondents could still be considered on reserve status. However, the NLRC noted that only two respondents had properly appealed the Labor Arbiter's decision, limiting the award to them. A subsequent motion for reconsideration by the respondents was denied, while petitioner's motion was partially granted by absolving Marcela Mall. The respondents then elevated the case to the Court of Appeals (CA) via a petition for certiorari, arguing that the NLRC erred in not giving due course to the appeal of the other respondents and in failing to rule that they were constructively dismissed. The Petition: Petitioner Tamblot Security & General Services, Inc. filed this Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to reverse the Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) promulgated on May 28, 2010, and its Resolution dated July 8, 2011. The CA had granted the respondents' petition, setting aside the NLRC Resolutions and declaring the respondents to have been constructively dismissed, ordering the petitioner to pay them full backwages, refund of cash bonds, and attorney's fees, and remanding the case for computation. The petitioner contends that there was no constructive dismissal and that the respondents were guilty of abandonment of work, thus disentitling them to any monetary award. The Supreme Court, however, found the petition devoid of merit, reiterating that abandonment requires not only absence but also a clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship, and that the burden of proof rests on the employer, which petitioner failed to discharge.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondents are guilty of abandonment of work. Whether the respondents were constructively dismissed.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION, ordering petitioner to pay interest of six percent (6%) per annum from finality of the decision.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court ruled that the respondents did not abandon their work. For abandonment to exist, the employer must prove the employee failed to report without justification and possessed a clear intent to sever the relationship. In this case, while petitioner claimed to have sent notices for new assignments, it failed to provide any proof that the respondents actually received these notices. Without proof of receipt, it cannot be established that the respondents' absence was unjustified. Furthermore, the Court applied the rule from Fernandez v. Newfield Staff Solutions, Inc., stating that employees who immediately file a complaint for illegal dismissal cannot be deemed to have abandoned their work, as the filing itself is proof of their desire to continue employment. On Issue 2: The Court affirmed the finding of constructive dismissal. Constructive dismissal occurs when an employer's actions make continued employment impossible or unreasonable. Here, the respondents were relieved from their posts immediately after refusing to withdraw their labor standards complaint, which indicates a retaliatory motive rather than a valid exercise of management prerogative. The petitioner's failure to prove that it offered valid new assignments or that the guards were properly notified of such assignments supports the conclusion that they were displaced. Since the defense of abandonment failed, the termination of their employment lacked a valid cause, rendering the dismissal illegal and constructive in nature.
Main Doctrine
The doctrine of abandonment in Philippine labor law requires the concurrence of the physical act of absence and the subjective intent to terminate the employment relationship. Intent is a state of mind that must be proven by the employer through overt acts that unerringly point to the fact that the employee no longer desires to work. Jurisprudence consistently holds that an employee who takes immediate legal steps to protest their dismissal cannot be said to have abandoned their job, as the filing of a complaint is proof of a desire to remain employed.