G.R. No. 114695 July 23, 1998
PREMIERE DEVELOPMENT BANK, PROCOPIO C. REYES, PACITA M. ARAOS and RENATO DIONISIO, petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and TEODORA LABANDA, respondents.

FACTS

On August 8, 1985, a depositor of petitioner Premiere Development Bank issued a check for deposit to another depositor’s account. Respondent Teodora Labanda, a bank teller, accepted the check after verification. The bookkeeper, Manuel Torio, erroneously posted the check to the drawer’s account instead of the payee’s account. The error was discovered on January 13, 1986. An audit report found Labanda and Torio primarily liable for the loss due to a failure to perform an end-of-the-day independent balancing. The bank demanded Labanda explain and later required her to shoulder 20% of the loss via salary deduction, which she objected to. On March 13, 1986, Labanda was placed under preventive suspension pending investigation. During the investigation on April 4, 1986, she refused to sign her preliminary statement without her husband’s consent and could not commit to future hearing dates. The bank rescheduled hearings and sent notices warning that failure to attend would be taken as a tacit admission of liability. On April 7, 1986, Labanda, through counsel, demanded P50,000 in damages from the bank for alleged arbitrary acts. On May 23, 1986, she filed a complaint for damages before the Regional Trial Court. The bank’s motion to dismiss was denied, and its petition for certiorari to the Court of Appeals was dismissed without prejudice to refiling with the labor arbiter; this decision became final on July 30, 1987. On April 4, 1988, Labanda filed an illegal dismissal case with the Labor Arbiter. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the case, ruling that by filing the civil complaint for damages, Labanda had on her own terminated her employment, effectively abandoning her job. The NLRC reversed this decision, ruling that the indefinite preventive suspension amounted to constructive dismissal, was without valid cause, and violated due process. The NLRC ordered reinstatement with backwages. Petitioners filed this certiorari petition.

ISSUE

The main issue is whether the filing of an action for damages against one’s employer tantamount to abandonment of job. Corollary issues are: (1) Whether Labanda was negligent for the misposting; (2) Whether the preventive suspension was illegal and violative of due process; and (3) Whether Labanda abandoned her job.

RULING

The petition is without merit. The filing of a complaint for damages does not constitute abandonment. Abandonment requires a clear, deliberate, and unjustified refusal to resume employment, coupled with an overt act showing a definite intent to sever the employer-employee relationship. Labanda’s act of filing a court case to claim damages for alleged oppressive acts does not, by itself, demonstrate an intention to abandon her work. The NLRC correctly ruled that the preventive suspension was without valid cause. Labanda was suspended on March 13, 1986, and the suspension lasted beyond the 30-day maximum period prescribed by law without her being reinstated or paid her wages during an extension. This indefinite preventive suspension amounted to constructive dismissal. Furthermore, the suspension was imposed even before a determination of Labanda’s culpability, as the proximate cause of the loss was primarily the bookkeeper’s negligence in posting, not Labanda’s. The NLRC’s finding that there was constructive dismissal is a factual determination supported by evidence and is generally conclusive. The NLRC’s order for reinstatement with backwages is affirmed.