This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2015-04-22 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| From the above factual scenario, the Court is not convinced that Sanchez abandoned his work. To constitute abandonment, it is essential that an employee failed to report for work without any valid and justifiable reason and that he had a clear intention to sever the employment relationship by some overt act.[29] Mere failure to report for work after notice to return does not constitute abandonment.[30] As mentioned, Sanchez reported back to Ong-Sitco several times to ask about his employment status but was not entertained. Oddly, while Ong-Sitco did not deny this, he never bothered to explain why during these instances, he did not warn Sanchez about his continued absence or ask him to return to work, if only to bolster the claim that he was not dismissed. Instead, Ong-Sitco just ignored him and this, under the circumstances, only shows his intention not to retain him. This is further bolstered by the fact, as shown by the records, that the two memorandum-letters were sent to Sanchez after he filed a complaint against petitioners. Clearly, Sanchez cannot be said to have unjustifiably refused to return to work. He cannot be faulted from reasonably concluding that the memorandum-letters were merely made in order to give semblance of validity to his termination. In addition and as aptly observed by the CA, Sanchez's immediate filing of the complaint is proof of his desire to return to work. It has been held that the filing of a complaint negates any intention of abandoning foregoing employment.[31] | |||||
|
2014-03-12 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Respondent, whose employment was terminated without valid cause by petitioners, is entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to his full back wages, inclusive of allowances and other benefits or their monetary equivalent, computed from the time his compensation was withheld from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement. Where reinstatement is no longer viable as an option, back wages shall be computed from the time of the illegal termination up to the finality of the decision. Separation pay equivalent to one month salary for every year of service should likewise be awarded as an alternative in case reinstatement in not possible.[45] | |||||
|
2013-07-08 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| As defined under established jurisprudence, abandonment is the deliberate and unjustified refusal of an employee to resume his employment.[22] It constitutes neglect of duty and is a just cause for termination of employment under paragraph (b) of Article 282 of the Labor Code.[23] To constitute abandonment, however, there must be a clear and deliberate intent to discontinue one's employment without any intention of returning. In this regard, 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.[24] Otherwise stated, absence must be accompanied by overt acts unerringly pointing to the fact that the employee simply does not want to work anymore.[25] It has been ruled that the employer has the burden of proof to show a deliberate and unjustified refusal of the employee to resume his employment without any intention of returning.[26] | |||||
|
2012-03-06 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| The DOLE, in determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship, has a ready set of guidelines to follow, the same guide the courts themselves use. The elements to determine the existence of an employment relationship are: (1) the selection and engagement of the employee; (2) the payment of wages; (3) the power of dismissal; (4) the employer's power to control the employee's conduct.[9] The use of this test is not solely limited to the NLRC. The DOLE Secretary, or his or her representatives, can utilize the same test, even in the course of inspection, making use of the same evidence that would have been presented before the NLRC. | |||||
|
2011-09-21 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| The concept of constructive dismissal is inapplicable to respondents. Constructive dismissal is a derivative of dismissal without cause; an involuntary resignation, nay, a dismissal in disguise.[20] It occurs when there is cessation of work because continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable, or unlikely as when there is a demotion in rank or diminution in pay or when a clear discrimination, insensibility, or disdain by an employer becomes unbearable to the employee leaving the latter with no other option but to quit.[21] | |||||
|
2011-02-23 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| The jurisprudential rule on abandonment is constant. It is a matter of intention and cannot lightly be presumed from certain equivocal acts. To constitute abandonment, two elements must concur: (1) the failure to report for work or absence without valid or justifiable reason; and (2) a clear intent, manifested through overt acts, to sever the employer-employee relationship.[13] | |||||