GR 158731; (January, 2007) (Digest)
G.R. No. 158731 ; January 25, 2007
Ireneo L. Camua, Jr., Petitioner, vs. National Labor Relations Commission, Second Division, RBL Fishing Corporation and Engr. Ben Y. Lim, Jr., Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Ireneo L. Camua, Jr., a caulker for RBL Fishing Corporation since 1975, stopped reporting for work in August 1997 after learning a policeman with an arrest warrant was looking for him in connection with a fatal shooting incident. He went into hiding in Batangas. RBL sent him a letter dated August 30, 1997, requiring him to explain his absence and report for a summary investigation. He allegedly sent a reply dated September 5, 1997, explaining his situation. On November 24, 1997, he received a memorandum dated November 22, 1997, informing him of his termination effective December 21, 1997, for abandonment. He filed a complaint for illegal dismissal in February 1998.
The Labor Arbiter initially ruled that while Camua failed to properly inform RBL, dismissal was too harsh given his long service, ordering reinstatement without backwages. The NLRC reversed, finding valid dismissal for abandonment. The Court of Appeals, while finding Camua intended to return to work, upheld the dismissal, deeming his reason for absence—fear of arrest—unacceptable and unjustifiable.
ISSUE
Whether petitioner was illegally dismissed on the grounds of abandonment.
RULING
No, the dismissal was legal. The Supreme Court affirmed the findings of the NLRC and the Court of Appeals, ruling that petitioner abandoned his employment. For abandonment to exist, two factors must concur: (1) the employee’s failure to report for work without a valid or justifiable reason, and (2) a clear intention to sever the employment relationship, demonstrated by overt acts. The Court found both elements present.
First, petitioner’s reason for his prolonged absence—fear of arrest—was not a valid or justifiable reason to absent himself from work. Second, and more critically, the Court agreed with the lower tribunals that petitioner failed to substantiate his claim that he properly notified his employer of his absence and his intention to return. The alleged reply letters he sent lacked any proof of receipt by RBL. His failure to adequately respond to the company’s official communications requiring an explanation was a clear overt act manifesting a lack of intention to continue his employment. Therefore, his termination was based on a just cause.