G.R. No. 122368 June 19, 1997
BERNARDO NAZAL and C.B. NAZAL TRADING, petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and ERNESTO CASTRO, respondents.

FACTS

Respondent Ernesto Castro was hired by petitioners, first as a special service employee and later as a security guard, until his services were terminated on May 15, 1985. He filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with reinstatement and back wages. Petitioners contended that Castro was not dismissed but had abandoned his work for almost eight months, which constitutes a valid ground for dismissal under Article 283 of the Labor Code. The Labor Arbiter initially dismissed the complaint, finding that Castro had abandoned his work. On appeal, the NLRC remanded the case for further proceedings, finding petitioners’ claim of abandonment to be based on mere allegations without concrete evidence. After reception of additional evidence, the Labor Arbiter again dismissed the complaint. On a second appeal, the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter’s decision, ordering petitioners to pay Castro back wages, separation pay, and attorney’s fees. Petitioners then filed this petition for certiorari, alleging the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion.

ISSUE

Whether the National Labor Relations Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in reversing the Labor Arbiter’s decision and finding that respondent Ernesto Castro was illegally dismissed, and not that he had abandoned his work.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the NLRC’s decision. The Court held that petitioners failed to prove that Castro abandoned his work. For abandonment to be a valid cause for dismissal, there must be a concurrence of an intention to abandon and an overt act from which such intention can be inferred. The filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal negates the claim of abandonment. Petitioners admitted they did not formally terminate Castro’s services nor provide due process. Their lone witness, the company’s General Manager, could not give a categorical reason for Castro’s absence. Petitioners’ claim that Castro failed to report for work after learning of an investigation into pilferage was not substantiated. Castro’s testimony that he was told his services were no longer needed was never refuted. The burden of proving a just cause for dismissal rests on the employer, and mere allegations do not constitute proof. The Court also addressed procedural issues, noting that a prior motion for reconsideration to the NLRC’s second decision was not strictly necessary as the issues had been previously passed upon, and found no merit in petitioners’ argument that Castro’s complaint was filed after an eight-month delay, as the prescriptive period for such actions is four years.