G.R. No. 153148. July 15, 2005.
SHIE JIE CORPORATION/SEASTAR EX-IM CORP., BIEN YANG, MICHAEL YANG and SAMMY YANG, Petitioners, vs. NATIONAL FEDERATION OF LABOR, et al., Respondents.

FACTS

The respondents, employed as fish processors by petitioners, filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice. They alleged that on July 20, 1998, petitioners confronted them about their union activities, ordered them to go home, and subsequently suspended them for one week. Upon their return, they were served with a termination notice for alleged abandonment of work. Petitioners presented a contrary version, claiming the employees staged a walk-out on July 20, 1998, leading to a one-week suspension. They further asserted that six respondents submitted resignation letters on July 27, 1998, while the remaining four were later terminated for abandonment.
The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the respondents, declaring their dismissal illegal and awarding monetary claims. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed this decision on appeal, dismissing the complaint. The Court of Appeals, however, reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s ruling, prompting the petitioners to elevate the case to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the Labor Arbiter’s finding that the respondents were illegally dismissed.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. The core legal principle applied is that in dismissal cases, the burden of proof rests upon the employer to show that the termination was for a just or authorized cause. Petitioners failed to discharge this burden. The Court found the alleged resignations of six respondents to be incredible. The act of filing a complaint for illegal dismissal shortly after the purported resignation negated any intent to relinquish their employment, rendering the resignations involuntary and invalid.
Regarding the charge of abandonment, the Court ruled it was unsubstantiated. Abandonment requires a clear, deliberate, and unjustified refusal to resume employment, coupled with an overt act showing a definitive intent to sever the employer-employee relationship. The respondents’ failure to report on July 27, 1998, was justified as they were under a valid suspension effective until July 28, 1998. Their absence during the suspension period cannot be construed as abandonment. Consequently, with no valid cause for termination established, the dismissals were declared illegal. The awards for backwages and separation pay in lieu of reinstatement were upheld as proper remedies.