This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2011-11-21 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Neither may private respondent's refusal to report for work subsequent to the Labor Arbiter's issuance of an order for his reinstatement be considered as another abandonment of his job. It is a settled rule that failure to report for work after a notice to return to work has been served does not necessarily constitute abandonment.[19] As defined under established jurisprudence, abandonment is the deliberate and unjustified refusal of an employee to resume his employment.[20] It is a form of neglect of duty, hence, a just cause for termination of employment by the employer.[21] For a valid finding of abandonment, these two factors should be present: (1) the failure to report for work or absence without valid or justifiable reason; and (2) a clear intention to sever employer-employee relationship, with the second as the more determinative factor which is manifested by overt acts from which it may be deduced that the employee has no more intention to work.[22] The intent to discontinue the employment must be shown by clear proof that it was deliberate and unjustified.[23] In the instant case, private respondent claimed that his subsequent refusal to report for work despite the Labor Arbiter's order for his reinstatement is due to the fact that he was subsequently made to perform the job of a "bodegero" of which he is unfamiliar and which is totally different from his previous task of "mastering tape." Moreover, he was assigned to a different workplace, which is a warehouse, where he was isolated from all other employees. The Court notes that petitioners failed to refute the foregoing claims of private respondent in their pleadings filed with the CA. It is only in their Reply filed with this Court that they simply denied and brushed off private respondent's assertion that he was made to work as a "bodegero." The Court is, thus, led to conclude that petitioners' failure to immediately refute the claims of private respondent is an implied admission thereof. In the same vein, the Court treats petitioners' belated denial of the same claims of private respondent as mere afterthought which is not worthy of credence. | |||||
|
2009-10-23 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| To constitute abandonment, there must be a clear and deliberate intent to discontinue one's employment without any intention of returning. Two elements must concur: (1) failure to report for work or absence without valid or justifiable reason, and (2) a clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship, with the second element as the more determinative factor and being manifested by some overt acts.[13] It is the employer who has the burden of proof to show a deliberate and unjustified refusal of the employee to resume his employment without any intention of returning.[14] | |||||
|
2007-04-03 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| It bears emphasis that for termination of employment on the ground of abandonment to be considered valid, the employer must prove,[27] by substantial evidence,[28] the concurrence of two essential requisites: first, the failure of the employee to report for work or his absence from work without valid or justifiable reason;[29] and second, his clear and deliberate intention to discontinue his employment.[30] The second requisite, considered to be the more crucial one, may be established by evidence of overt acts on the part of the employee from which may be inferred a lack of intention to resume his work.[31] | |||||