Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

HODIENG CONCRETE PRODUCTS v. DANTE EMILIA

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 177812 2013-06-19	CONCRETE SOLUTIONS v. ARTHUR CABUSAS PERALTA, J.
To constitute abandonment, two elements must concur, to wit: (1) the 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.[31] Abandonment is a matter of intention and cannot lightly be presumed from certain equivocal acts.[32] To be a valid cause for dismissal for abandonment, there must be clear proof of deliberate and unjustified intent to sever the employer-employee relationship.[33] Clearly, the operative act is still the employee's ultimate act of putting an end to his employment.[34]
	GR No. 191053 2011-11-28	MARIO B. DIMAGAN v. DACWORKS UNITED PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
In the case of Hodieng Concrete Products, Inc. v. Emilia[30], citing Samarca v. Arc-Men Industries, Inc.[31], the Court has ruled thus: "x x x. Absence must be accompanied by overt acts unerringly pointing to the fact that the employee simply does not want to work anymore. And the burden of proof to show that there was unjustified refusal to go back to work rests on the employer.
	GR No. 158458 2007-12-19	ASIAN TERMINALS v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
To justify the dismissal of respondent for abandonment, petitioners should have established by concrete evidence the concurrence of two elements: first, that respondent had the intention to deliberately and without justification abandon his employment or refuse to resume his work; and second, that respondent performed overt acts from which it may be deduced that he no longer intended to work. [25]
	GR NO. 152531 2007-07-27	RODELIA S. FUNGO v. LOURDES SCHOOL OF MANDALUYONG SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Under Article 279 of the Labor Code, an employee who is unjustly dismissed from work shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to his full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and to his other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from the time his compensation was withheld from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement. Considering, however, that the nature of petitioner's work requires constant interaction with Fr. Bustamante, their working relationship has been strained. Thus, the payment of separation pay and other benefits in lieu of reinstatement is in order. A more equitable disposition would be an award of separation pay equivalent to at least one month pay, or one month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher, with a fraction of at least six (6) months being considered as one (1) whole year.[15]
	GR NO. 168931 2006-09-12	PAULINO ALITEN v. U-NEED LUMBER CALLEJO, SR., J.
However, the state of affairs obtaining in this case do not justify the reinstatement of petitioner. Discernible resentment and animosity caused a severe strain in the relationship between him and the private respondent. A more equitable disposition would be an award of separation pay equivalent to at least one month pay, or one month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher (with a fraction of at least six months being considered as one whole year), in addition to his full backwages, allowances and other benefits.[37]
	GR NO. 149669 2006-07-27	L.C. ORDOÑEZ CONSTRUCTION v. IMELDA NICDAO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The foregoing was further elucidated in Hodieng Concrete Products v. Emilia,[14] where the Court held:The rule is that before abandonment can be considered a valid cause for dismissal, there must be a concurrence of the intention to abandon and some overt acts from which an employee may be deduced as having no more intention to work.
	GR NO. 167762 2005-12-15	BATANGAS STATE UNIVERSITY v. NESTOR BONIFACIO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
While a temporary transfer or assignment of personnel is permissible even without the employee's prior consent, it cannot be done when the transfer is a preliminary step toward his removal, or is a scheme to lure him away from his permanent position, or designed to indirectly terminate his service, or force his resignation. Such a transfer would in effect circumvent the provision which safeguards the tenure of office of those who are in the Civil Service.... Neither are the circumstances obtaining in the case at bar constitute abandonment. It must be emphasized that the detail order was issued on October 10, 1994 when the school semester was not yet over. Upon his detail in the office of the president, respondent did not lose his position[22] as a teacher. Contrary to petitioner's allegation, it was also for the school's interest that respondent continued to conduct classes and coach the basketball team. Thus, it cannot be said that respondent abandoned his position considering that he continued to faithfully discharge his duties. Abandonment is a matter of intention and cannot lightly be presumed from certain equivocal acts. To constitute abandonment, there must be clear proof of deliberate and unjustified intent to sever the employer-employee relationship.[23]
	GR NO. 141464 2005-09-21	GRANDSPAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. RICARDO BERNARDO
Since respondents were illegally dismissed from work, they are entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights, full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from the time their compensation was withheld from them up to the time of their actual reinstatement.[10]