G.R. No. 179985 ; September 18, 2009
ODILON L. MARTINEZ, Petitioner, vs. B&B FISH BROKER/NORBERTO M. LUCINARIO, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Odilon L. Martinez was employed as a cashier by B&B Fish Broker, a partnership managed by respondent Norberto M. Lucinario. On November 24, 2002, Lucinario confronted Martinez about alleged cash collection shortages and ordered him to take a leave. Upon returning on November 26, Martinez was relieved as cashier and reassigned as company custodian. On December 2, 2002, Martinez applied for a four-day leave due to an inflamed jaw. When he attempted to return to work on December 9, 2002, he discovered his name had been removed from the company logbook and he was prevented from entering. He was informed his leave application had been denied.
Martinez filed a complaint for illegal dismissal on December 19, 2002. Lucinario countered that Martinez had a history of cash shortages and had abandoned his job after being required to explain discrepancies on December 6, 2002. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of merit but ordered reinstatement without backwages and payment of monetary benefits. The NLRC reversed, finding illegal dismissal and awarding full backwages. The Court of Appeals then reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s decision, giving credence to the affidavits presented by Lucinario and finding no dismissal.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the NLRC’s finding that petitioner was illegally dismissed.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition and reinstated the NLRC Resolution. The legal logic centers on the burden of proof in abandonment cases and the concept of constructive dismissal. For abandonment to exist, the employer must prove by substantial evidence the concurrence of: (1) the employee’s failure to report for work without valid reason, and (2) a clear intention to sever the employment relationship. Respondent failed to establish these elements.
Petitioner’s actions demonstrated no intent to abandon his job. After his reassignment, he continued reporting for work. He filed a leave application for a medical reason. Upon discovering his name erased from the logbook and being barred from entry, he immediately sought an explanation from Lucinario and, failing that, promptly filed an illegal dismissal complaint with a prayer for reinstatement. These acts are inconsistent with abandonment. Conversely, the employer’s act of removing his name from the logbook and denying him entry, after a contentious reassignment, placed him in a situation where continued employment became impossible. This constitutes constructive dismissal, as the employee is forced to resign due to the employer’s unreasonable or hostile actions. The NLRC correctly found illegal dismissal.