G.R. No. 128957 November 16, 1999
ANTONIO PARE, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and ASIA RATTAN MANUFACTURING CO., INC., respondents.

FACTS

Antonio Pare was hired by Asia Rattan Manufacturing Co., Inc. in February 1987 as a rattan framer. On November 9, 1992, he reported for work but was refused entry into the company premises. He was instead directed to answer a letter from the company requiring him to explain his absences on specific dates in October and November 1992, failing which his services would be terminated. In his reply dated November 25, 1992, Pare explained that his absences were due to the need to care for his wife who suffered a nervous breakdown. His explanation was accepted by the company’s Industrial Relations Manager, who ordered his reinstatement. However, Pare’s immediate supervisor refused to reinstate him, prompting Pare to file a complaint for illegal dismissal.
The company countered that Pare was not dismissed but had abandoned his work. It alleged that after being instructed to report back on November 26, 1992, Pare failed to do so. Consequently, the company considered him to have abandoned his job as of December 1, 1992, and formally terminated his services on January 28, 1993. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Pare, finding the dismissal illegal and ordering the payment of monetary awards. On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the Labor Arbiter, holding that Pare’s unauthorized absences were tantamount to abandonment, a valid ground for dismissal.

ISSUE

Whether or not the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling that Antonio Pare was validly dismissed on the ground of abandonment.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversing the NLRC. The Court held that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion as the essential elements of abandonment were not present. For abandonment to be a valid ground for dismissal, two elements must concur: (a) the employee’s failure to report for work without valid or justifiable reason, and (b) a clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship, evidenced by overt acts. The burden of proving these elements rests on the employer.
In this case, the first element was not satisfied because Pare’s absences were justified, as he needed to attend to his ailing wife. Moreover, the company’s own letter only required him to explain his absences on specific dates in late October and early November 1992. The Court noted that any prior absences had already been penalized with suspensions and reprimands, and using them again as a ground for dismissal would place Pare in double jeopardy. The second element was also absent. Pare demonstrated no intention to abandon his job. He promptly complied with the company’s directive to explain his absences. He even reported for work on November 9, 1992, but was barred from entering. Most importantly, he filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, which is an act inconsistent with an intent to abandon employment. The mere lapse of six months before filing the complaint does not indicate abandonment, as the prescriptive period for such actions is four years. Therefore, Pare was illegally dismissed and is entitled to reinstatement with full back wages.