G.R. No. 140555 . July 14, 2005.
NEW EVER MARKETING, INC., Petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ESPIRITU YLANAN, CESAR FULO, and WILFREDO BILASA, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner New Ever Marketing, Inc. employed respondents as drivers and a delivery man. In 1994, respondents filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and monetary claims. They alleged that after various incidents in October 1994, including being barred from entering company premises and instructed to wait for a certain “Ding” who never arrived, they were effectively locked out and later informed they were considered absent without official leave (AWOL). Petitioner countered that respondents abandoned their work, failing to report without filing leaves. The company claimed it sent memoranda requiring explanations for the absences and later informed respondents they were deemed to have abandoned their jobs.
The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint, finding valid dismissal due to abandonment. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed, finding constructive dismissal. The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC. Petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court, arguing the appellate court erred in not reviewing factual findings and in ruling that abandonment was not proven.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in affirming the NLRC’s finding that respondents were illegally dismissed, not having abandoned their work.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the lower courts’ rulings. The legal logic centers on the burden of proof in dismissal cases and the elements of abandonment. In termination disputes, the employer bears the burden of proving that the dismissal was for a just or authorized cause. Abandonment requires a clear demonstration of: (1) the employee’s failure to report for work or absence without valid or justifiable reason, and (2) a clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship, with the second element being the more crucial.
The Court found petitioner failed to discharge this burden. The purported memoranda sent to respondents lacked proof of receipt, fatally undermining petitioner’s claim of compliance with due process and its narrative of abandonment. In contrast, respondents’ consistent attempts to return to work, only to be denied entry and given run-arounds, negated any intention to abandon their employment. Their immediate filing of a complaint strongly indicated a desire to work, not to sever the relationship. The employer’s act of preventing them from working constituted constructive dismissal. Consequently, respondents were entitled to reinstatement and full backwages under Article 279 of the Labor Code.