G.R. No. 168664 ; May 4, 2006
LIGAYA R. MACHICA, et al., Petitioners, vs. ROOSEVELT SERVICES CENTER, INC., and/or ODILON P. DIZON, substituted by LITO/ANGELITO DIZON, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners were employees of respondent Roosevelt Services Center, Inc. (RSCI), a gasoline station. A customer, San Francisco Mirror Corporation (SFMC), complained of inflated fuel purchases and conducted an investigation, finding its own personnel conspired with some RSCI employees. RSCI consequently gave SFMC a 50% discount on its bill. On March 23, 2001, RSCI issued a memorandum to all personnel detailing the fraud, its consequences (including the financial loss from the discount), and stating that those involved or with knowledge would share the unpaid amount. Petitioners refused to sign the acknowledgment on the memo, writing “ayaw” instead.
The following Monday, March 26, Ligaya Machica filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, followed by the other petitioners on March 28. They alleged that due to their refusal to sign, they were terminated and told not to report for work. They also discovered a P500 deduction from their March salary. RSCI countered that petitioners were not dismissed but had abandoned their work after filing the complaints and failing to report.

ISSUE

Whether the petitioners were illegally dismissed from their employment.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that petitioners were NOT illegally dismissed. The legal logic hinges on the distinction between dismissal and abandonment, and the burden of proof in dismissal cases. For a claim of illegal dismissal to succeed, the employee must prove by substantial evidence the fact of dismissal. The Court found petitioners failed to discharge this burden. The act of filing complaints for illegal dismissal immediately after refusing the memorandum, coupled with their subsequent absence, strongly indicated an intention to sever employment, constituting abandonment. Abandonment is a voluntary act distinguished from dismissal, requiring a clear, deliberate, and unjustified refusal to resume work.
The Court further held that RSCI’s memorandum and the salary deduction, while disciplinary, did not constitute a dismissal order. The deduction was a unilateral imposition of a penalty for the loss, but the employer’s actions did not demonstrate a clear intent to terminate. Since there was no dismissal, the requirement for due process prior to termination was inapplicable. The National Labor Relations Commission and the Court of Appeals correctly found no grave abuse of discretion in the Labor Arbiter’s ruling that no illegal dismissal occurred. Consequently, each party bore their own loss, with petitioners deemed to have abandoned their posts.