GR 169227; (July, 2010) (Digest)
G.R. No. 169227 ; July 5, 2010
PHILIPPINE RURAL RECONSTRUCTION MOVEMENT (PRRM), Petitioner, vs. VIRGILIO E. PULGAR, Respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Virgilio Pulgar was the manager of petitioner PRRM’s Tayabas Bay Field Office. PRRM conducted an investigation into alleged financial anomalies at the office, finding missing funds and fictitious receipts. In his written explanation, Pulgar admitted to diverting project funds and submitting fake receipts to meet liquidation deadlines, while also disclosing a separate bank account holding office savings. A meeting was held on March 4, 1997, where Pulgar presented a passbook for this account. PRRM’s version asserts that Pulgar subsequently went on leave and never returned, constituting abandonment. Conversely, Pulgar claimed that after submitting a complaint about the investigation, he was barred from entering the office premises on March 31, 1997, and his personal effects were removed. Believing himself constructively dismissed, he filed an illegal dismissal complaint on April 3, 1997.
ISSUE
Was respondent Virgilio Pulgar illegally dismissed from his employment?
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court ruled that Pulgar was illegally dismissed. The Court affirmed the findings of the Court of Appeals, which reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s decision. The legal logic centered on the burden of proof in dismissal cases and the inconsistency of the claim of abandonment. In termination disputes, the employer bears the burden to prove that the dismissal was for a just or authorized cause. PRRM failed to discharge this burden. Its claim that Pulgar abandoned his work was not substantiated by clear evidence. The Court emphasized that abandonment is a voluntary act requiring a clear, deliberate, and unjustified refusal to resume employment, coupled with an intent to sever the employer-employee relationship.
Critically, the act of filing an illegal dismissal complaint is utterly inconsistent with an intention to abandon one’s job. Pulgar’s proactive filing of the case on April 3, 1997, negated any inference of abandonment. Furthermore, the Court gave weight to Pulgar’s uncontroverted allegations that he was prevented from entering the workplace and that his belongings were boxed and stored, which constitute acts of constructive dismissal. Since PRRM did not effectively rebut these claims and failed to prove a lawful cause for termination, the dismissal was deemed illegal. The Court upheld the award of separation pay in lieu of reinstatement due to the strained relations between the parties.