This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2010-09-08 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| We find no error in the labor arbiter's ruling on the question of petitioners' liability for constructive dismissal. It seems petitioners rested their case on the defense of respondents' abandonment of work.[23] For this cause to prosper, petitioners should have proved (1) that the failure to report for work was without justifiable reason, and (2) respondents' intention to sever the employer-employee relationship as shown by some overt acts.[24] Petitioners failed to discharge their burden of proof. On respondents' non-reporting for work, petitioners failed to rebut respondents' claim that they were denied entry to their work area and the records substantially support the arbiter's finding that respondents were placed on shifts "not by weeks but almost by month."[25] Further, petitioners fail to bring to our attention any overt acts of respondents showing clear intention to sever their employment relationship with petitioners. On the contrary, respondents' act of filing complaints before the NLRC for illegal dismissal shows intent to continue their employment and hold petitioners liable for their constructive dismissal and for non-compliance with labor laws on payment of benefits. We have consistently treated this fact as belying intent to abandon work.[26] | |||||
|
2010-08-25 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| In awarding separation pay to an illegally dismissed employee, in lieu of reinstatement, the amount to be awarded shall be equivalent to one month salary for every year of service[34] reckoned from the first day of employment until the finality of the decision.[35] Payment of separation pay is in addition to payment of backwages.[36] And if separation pay is awarded instead of reinstatement, backwages shall be computed from the time of illegal termination up to the finality of the decision.[37] | |||||