G.R. No. 107729. December 6, 1995.
GEORGE D. JONES, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, 4th Division, Cebu City; ABBOTT LABORATORIES (PHILS.), INC., AUBREY BOUT, and ELENITO P. TUAZON, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner George D. Jones, a long-time employee of Abbott Laboratories, applied for and was granted a vacation leave from September 11 to 28, 1989. Before it expired, he applied for sick leave effective September 29, citing hypertension, supported by a medical certificate. Abbott disapproved his sick leave on October 10 and ordered him to report within five days. He did not report. On October 25, Abbott sent another directive for him to report on October 27, or face dismissal for abandonment. Having received no reply, Abbott terminated him on October 27.
In the interim, on October 20, Jones wrote from Canada, informing his employer he would report in the first week of December upon his physician’s advice to rest and undergo further examination. Upon his return, he learned of his dismissal and filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled for Abbott, but the NLRC initially reversed this, finding no abandonment. Upon Abbott’s motion for reconsideration, the NLRC reversed itself, upholding the dismissal for abandonment.

ISSUE

Whether petitioner George D. Jones was illegally dismissed, specifically on the grounds of abandonment and for non-compliance with procedural due process.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Jones, declaring his dismissal illegal. On the substantive aspect, the Court found no valid abandonment. Abandonment requires a clear, deliberate, and unjustified refusal to resume employment, not mere absence. Jones’s act of promptly filing an illegal dismissal complaint negates any intent to abandon his work. Furthermore, his October 20 letter stating his intent to return in December demonstrated a desire to continue employment, making his absence temporary.
On procedural due process, the Court found the twin-notice requirement was not satisfied. The October 10 letter was not a valid notice of charge as it merely disapproved the sick leave and ordered him to report. The October 25 letter, which stated the cause for termination, was sent only two days before his scheduled dismissal date. Given the postal conditions from Manila to Bacolod, it was unreasonable to expect Jones to receive it and comply within that period. Thus, he was not afforded a real opportunity to be heard. The dismissal, being without just cause and due process, warranted reinstatement with full back wages and benefits.