GR 159808; (September, 2008) (Digest)
G.R. No. 159808 September 30, 2008
LEOPARD INTEGRATED SERVICES, INC. and/or JOSE POE, Petitioners, vs. VIRGILIO MACALINAO, Respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Virgilio Macalinao, a security guard employed by petitioner Leopard Integrated Services, Inc., filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. He alleged that after being relieved from his post at Westmont Pharma Bonaventure on September 8, 1998, he was placed on “floating status” until he filed the case on June 28, 1999. Petitioners countered that respondent was not dismissed but had gone on absence without leave (AWOL) by failing to report for work as ordered. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the Labor Arbiter, ordering reinstatement with full backwages and payment of monetary awards. The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC’s decision. Petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Virgilio Macalinao was illegally dismissed or whether he voluntarily abandoned his employment.
RULING
The Supreme Court REVERSED and SET ASIDE the Court of Appeals Decision and Resolution, and REINSTATED the Labor Arbiter’s Decision dismissing the complaint. The Court held that respondent was not illegally dismissed; instead, he voluntarily severed his employment by abandonment. The evidence showed that after being relieved from his post on September 7, 1998, respondent was assigned to report to the company headquarters via Assignment Order No. 2485. A subsequent letter-memorandum dated October 10, 1998, advised him to report to the HRD Manager by October 20, 1998, but respondent denied receiving it, claiming he had moved. The Court found that petitioners substantiated their claim that respondent deliberately and unjustifiably refused to resume work. The NLRC erroneously concluded that the letter-memorandum was mailed only on October 14, 1999, when a Postmaster Certification confirmed it was mailed on October 14, 1998. Respondent failed to prove dismissal, as there was no notice of termination or prevention from returning to work. His intermittent appearances to claim benefits did not indicate an intent to resume work, and his own letter asking for backwages up to September 1998 suggested he had stopped working. During proceedings, petitioners offered reinstatement, which respondent refused, and he was later admitted back to work during the CA pendency. Thus, no illegal dismissal occurred.