GR 160769; (August, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 160769 August 9, 2006
CITY TRUCKING, INC. / JOHN EDLES, Petitioners, vs. ANTONIO BALAJADIA, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner City Trucking, Inc., engaged in waste hauling, employed respondent Antonio Balajadia as a helper mechanic. On December 31, 2000, the San Mateo landfill closed. In January 2001, the chief mechanic informed Balajadia he could continue working but might not be paid until clients paid the company. Subsequently, the company secretary told him he was already terminated. Balajadia stopped reporting for work on January 7, 2001. On January 18, 2001, he requested and received a Certificate of Employment from the company. He then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.
The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Balajadia, awarding separation pay and backwages. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed this. The Court of Appeals upheld the NLRC but modified the decision by ordering Balajadia’s reinstatement. Petitioners appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing Balajadia abandoned his job, as evidenced by his absenteeism, his request for a certificate, and his belated complaint filing.
ISSUE
The main issue is whether respondent abandoned his employment, constituting a valid dismissal.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that respondent was illegally dismissed and did not abandon his work. Abandonment requires a deliberate and unjustified refusal to resume employment, with clear intent to sever the employment permanently. The employer bears the burden of proof. Petitioners failed to discharge this burden.
The Court held that Balajadia’s absence was not unjustified; he stopped working after being explicitly told by company representatives that his services were terminated and that he might work without pay. His subsequent request for a Certificate of Employment was a natural consequence of his perceived dismissal, not proof of abandonment. Furthermore, the timing of his complaint did not indicate abandonment. Since petitioners failed to prove a clear intent to abandon, the dismissal was illegal.
However, the Court deleted the reinstatement order. Balajadia had consistently prayed for separation pay in lieu of reinstatement from the start of the proceedings, which the Court interpreted as a waiver of reinstatement. The decision was affirmed with the modification that reinstatement is no longer required.