GR 168931; (September, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 168931 September 12, 2006
PAULINO ALITEN, petitioner, vs. U-NEED LUMBER & HARDWARE, and COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Paulino Aliten was employed by respondent U-Need Lumber & Hardware. On May 4, 1992, he signed a typewritten application for a one-week vacation leave. The application contained a stipulation that should he fail to report back after his vacation, he would be automatically terminated. Aliten claimed he was forced to sign without reading it. He left and returned on May 14, 1992, only to be informed he was already dismissed. He filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The employer, U-Need, contended that Aliten abandoned his job, citing the signed leave application as proof of his agreement to automatic termination upon failure to return. The Labor Arbiter ruled the dismissal illegal and ordered reinstatement with backwages. The NLRC affirmed. The Court of Appeals modified the ruling, upholding the legality of the dismissal but awarding nominal damages for procedural defect.
ISSUE
Was petitioner Paulino Aliten illegally dismissed from his employment?
RULING
No, the dismissal was for a just cause but was procedurally defective. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ finding that Aliten abandoned his work. Abandonment requires a clear, deliberate, and unjustified refusal to resume employment, coupled with an overt act showing a lack of intention to return. The signed leave application, wherein Aliten expressly agreed to automatic termination if he overstayed, constituted strong evidence of his intention to sever employment relations should he not return on time. His failure to report after the agreed period, without a valid justification, confirmed this intention. However, the employer failed to comply with the twin-notice requirement under the Labor Code. U-Need did not furnish Aliten with a written notice specifying the grounds for dismissal and affording him an opportunity to explain. The mere act of reporting his absence to the DOLE did not satisfy this mandatory procedural due process. Consequently, while the dismissal was based on a just cause (abandonment), the procedural infirmity rendered it ineffectual, warranting an award of nominal damages—not backwages or reinstatement—to vindicate the employee’s right to due process. The award serves as a penalty against the employer for its failure to follow the proper procedure.