This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2013-06-26 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| It is well-settled in our jurisprudence that "For[30] abandonment to constitute a valid cause for termination of employment, there must be a deliberate, unjustified refusal of the employee to resume his employment. This refusal must be clearly shown. Mere absence is not sufficient, it must be accompanied by overt acts unerringly pointing to the fact that the employee does not want to work anymore" (Emphasis and italics supplied)[31] | |||||
|
2006-08-09 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| "The PACU is similar to that of a police blotter wherein detailed records of the complaints and the complainants are kept."[17] Most complainants of illegal dismissal cases before the PACU are advised to file a formal complaint before the NLRC.[18] In the instant case, the proceedings before the PACU were not completed because respondent subsequently filed his complaint for illegal dismissal before the NLRC on March 14, 2001. Hence, it took respondent only 17 days from his last day at petitioners' employ to protest his dismissal before the PACU, and another 49 days to file his complaint for illegal dismissal before the NLRC. In Kingsize Manufacturing Corp. v. NLRC,[19] this Court even considered a lapse of nine months before filing a complaint for illegal dismissal a non-issue. Under the law, an employee has four years within which to institute his action for illegal dismissal.[20] An employee who forthwith takes steps to protest his removal from employment cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be said to have abandoned his work. | |||||