GR 160213; (January, 2007) (Digest)
G.R. No. 160213 ; January 30, 2007
ZENAIDA ANGELES, Petitioner, vs. LORDY FERNANDEZ, Respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Lordy Fernandez worked as a secretary and all-around worker for petitioner Zenaida Angeles’s tailoring shop, Bon Chic, from July 1992 to May 1998. In January 2000, Fernandez filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and monetary claims, alleging she was dismissed without cause or due process in May 1998. Angeles countered that Fernandez had voluntarily abandoned her job to elope with a younger man and that money and records went missing after her departure, leading to the shop’s closure. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Fernandez, finding illegal dismissal.
On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the Labor Arbiter, crediting new affidavits submitted by Angeles for the first time on appeal which alleged Fernandez’s abandonment and elopement. The NLRC concluded there was no dismissal. The Court of Appeals subsequently reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s decision, ruling the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion by considering the belated affidavits without giving Fernandez an opportunity to rebut them, and that Angeles failed to prove abandonment.
ISSUE
The core issues are: (1) whether the NLRC erred in accepting petitioner’s new evidence on appeal; and (2) whether respondent abandoned her job.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. On the first issue, the Court held that while technical rules of evidence are not strictly applied in labor proceedings, fundamental fairness and due process require that a party must be given the opportunity to confront and rebut any evidence presented against them. The NLRC gravely abused its discretion by admitting and relying on the belated affidavits without allowing Fernandez a chance to comment or submit countervailing evidence, violating her right to due process.
On the substantive issue of abandonment, the Court ruled that abandonment is a voluntary and deliberate act requiring a clear, unequivocal intent to sever the employment relationship. Mere absence is not sufficient. The employer bears the burden of proof. Here, Angeles failed to discharge this burden. There was no written notice from Fernandez indicating an intent to abandon her job. Furthermore, the filing of the illegal dismissal complaint strongly negates any such intent. Critically, Angeles failed to comply with the twin requirements of due process: she did not serve Fernandez a written notice specifying the ground for termination (abandonment) and did not afford her an opportunity to be heard. Consequently, Fernandez was illegally dismissed. The Court affirmed the award of backwages and separation pay in lieu of reinstatement.