G.R. No. 176377; November 16, 2011
FUNCTIONAL, INC., Petitioner, vs. SAMUEL C. GRANFIL, Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Samuel C. Granfil was hired in 1992 as a key operator by petitioner Functional, Inc. (FI), a company engaged in the sale and rental of business equipment, including photocopying machines. He was assigned to operate a photocopying machine rented by National Bookstore (NBS) at its SM Megamall Branch. On the evening of July 30, 2002, Granfil attended to a customer, Cosme Cavaldeja, who requested photocopying services. Security guard Bonnel Dechavez observed Cavaldeja handing money to Granfil after the transaction and submitted an incident report to the NBS Branch Manager, stating the customer paid Granfil directly instead of the cashier. Based on this report, NBS requested Granfil’s relief from his assignment. FI informed Granfil he would be transferred to a different assignment without demotion or diminution of benefits and directed him to report to the main office as an emergency reliever. Granfil, however, construed this as punishment and refused to comply. On September 3, 2002, Granfil filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, unpaid 13th month pay, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees against FI and its officers. He claimed the money received was a tip, payment had already been made by the customer’s wife, and he was terminated without just cause or due process when he reported to the head office on July 31, 2002. FI countered that Granfil was not dismissed but had abandoned his employment by refusing the lawful transfer order. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the illegal dismissal complaint, finding no substantial evidence of overt acts of termination, and only awarded proportionate 13th month pay. The NLRC affirmed this decision. The Court of Appeals reversed the NLRC, ruling that Granfil was illegally dismissed and ordering his reinstatement with full backwages.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that respondent Samuel C. Granfil was illegally dismissed by petitioner Functional, Inc.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the Court of Appeals Decision. The Court held that in illegal dismissal cases, the burden of proof rests upon the employer to show that the termination was for a just and valid cause. FI failed to discharge this burden. The Court found that FI’s claim of abandonment was unsubstantiated. Abandonment requires a clear, deliberate, and unjustified refusal to resume employment, coupled with an overt act indicating a lack of intention to return. Granfil’s act of filing an illegal dismissal complaint immediately after the incident negated any intention to abandon his work. Furthermore, FI’s evidence—consisting of NBS’s request for Granfil’s transfer and FI’s acquiescence—only proved a recall from assignment, not abandonment or a valid dismissal. The employer cannot escape liability by merely alleging abandonment without proof. Consequently, Granfil’s dismissal was illegal. The Court upheld the CA’s order for Granfil’s reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and payment of full backwages, inclusive of allowances and benefits, from July 31, 2002, until actual reinstatement.