G.R. No. L-76991 October 28, 1988
HERMENEGILDO L. SANTOS, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, JOHNSON & JOHNSON (PHILS.), INC. and JAIME V. CASTRO, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Hermenegildo L. Santos was a sales administration manager at Johnson & Johnson (Phils.), Inc. In April 1983, he requested a two-month leave to accompany his son, a cerebral palsy patient, to the United States for medical treatment. The company approved only one month. As his leave was ending, Santos sent a telex on May 5, 1983, explaining he needed to attend a crucial doctor and teacher conference for his son and would return by June 13. The company, through his superior Jaime V. Castro, replied that urgent business required his return by May 16 at the latest, or his position would be filled. Santos responded that due to budget fare limitations, his earliest return would be June 2.
The company deemed his return date unacceptable. On May 16, 1983, the company terminated Santos for abandonment of work and refusal to obey management orders. Upon his return, he was also demanded to settle his car plan balance. Santos filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) upheld the dismissal, finding it valid.

ISSUE

Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming Santos’s dismissal on the ground of abandonment.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversing the NLRC. The legal logic centered on the essential elements of abandonment. For dismissal on this ground to be valid, there must be a clear and deliberate intent by the employee to sever the employment relationship, evidenced by overt acts indicating they no longer wish to work. The Court found no such intent in Santos’s actions.
His repeated communications via telex, explaining his family medical emergency and proposing specific return dates, demonstrated a desire to retain his job, not to abandon it. His attempt to seek a solution for his son’s treatment, including exploring job possibilities in the U.S., was motivated by his family’s dire circumstances, not an intention to abandon his current employment. The company’s failure to conduct a proper investigation or provide an opportunity for Santos to fully explain his situation constituted a denial of due process. The Court emphasized that the employer’s prerogative to dismiss must be exercised without abuse of discretion and tempered with compassion, especially when the employee’s livelihood is at stake. Santos’s managerial status did not deprive him of constitutional security of tenure. His dismissal was declared illegal. The Court ordered his reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and the payment of three years’ backwages.