Josan v. Aduna
G.R. No. 190794 (February 22, 2012)
Facts:
Petitioners, JO-SAN Trucking Corporation, Santiago Cargo Movers, Inc., JPS Santiago Cargo Movers, Inc., and Mary Grace S. Parungao, are engaged in the trucking business under the sole proprietorship of Parungao, who serves as the president-manager. In January 2001, they hired Eduardo Ramos Aduna as a delivery truck driver, responsible for delivering ingredients for poultry feed, with compensation based on the number of trips made.
On December 5, 2005, Parungao instructed Aduna to report for work later that day. Upon his arrival around 5 p.m., she observed that he appeared to be drunk and advised him against making deliveries. Aduna allegedly reacted by using foul language and throwing the vehicle keys, subsequently engaging in a physical confrontation with a co-worker, Raymond dela Cruz.
Following this incident, Aduna did not report for work for approximately 50 days. When he returned on January 24, 2006, he expressed to a company employee that he no longer wished to continue working and requested a certificate of employment for future job applications. Petitioners contended that Aduna had abandoned his job, while Aduna claimed he was effectively dismissed as he was not given any work assignments and was barred from entering the premises.
Aduna subsequently filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and nonpayment of employment benefits.
Legal Issues:
The primary legal issue in this case is whether Eduardo Ramos Aduna was illegally dismissed from his employment with the petitioners.
Arguments:
Petitioners' Argument: Petitioners argued that Aduna was not terminated but had voluntarily abandoned his job. They claimed that his failure to report for work for 50 days constituted abandonment, especially since he had expressed a desire to leave the company by requesting a certificate of employment. They maintained that the confrontation with Dela Cruz justified their actions and that they had not formally dismissed him.
Respondent's Argument: Aduna contended that he was not drunk and had not been formally instructed to stop working. He denied the allegations of misconduct and argued that he was effectively dismissed when he was told to "lie low" and was not given any work assignments. He asserted that his request for a certificate of employment was not an indication of abandonment but rather a means to clarify his employment status after being sidelined.
Court's Decision and Legal Reasoning:
The Court affirmed the findings of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and the Court of Appeals (CA), ruling that Aduna had been illegally dismissed. The Court emphasized that abandonment of employment requires two elements: (1) a failure to report for work without valid reason, and (2) a clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship. The second element, which is more determinative, must be evidenced by overt acts.
The Court found that Aduna's prolonged absence was due to the petitioners' instruction to "lie low," which indicated that he was not abandoning his job but was instead waiting for further instructions. The Court noted that the petitioners failed to take any disciplinary action or to formally require Aduna to return to work, undermining their claim of abandonment.
Furthermore, the Court highlighted that the filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal is inconsistent with the notion of abandonment, as it demonstrates an employee's desire to return to work. The Court concluded that Aduna was constructively dismissed, as the conditions imposed by the petitioners made continued employment unreasonable.
The Court reiterated that the burden of proof lies with the employer to establish that the dismissal was for a valid cause. Since the petitioners could not prove that Aduna had abandoned his job, the Court upheld the findings of illegal dismissal and ordered the petitioners to provide separation pay instead of reinstatement due to the strained relations between the parties.
Significant Legal Principles Established:
Abandonment of Employment: Abandonment requires both a failure to report for work and a clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship, which must be evidenced by overt acts.
Constructive Dismissal: An employee may be deemed constructively dismissed when the employer's actions render continued employment impossible or unreasonable.
Burden of Proof: In cases of illegal dismissal, the burden of proof rests on the employer to demonstrate that the dismissal was justified.
Filing of Complaint: The act of filing a complaint for illegal dismissal negates any claim of abandonment, as it reflects the employee's intention to return to work.