GR 175369; (February, 2013) (Digest)
G.R. No. 175369; February 27, 2013
Tegimenta Chemical Phils. and Vivian Rose D. Garcia, Petitioners, vs. Mary Anne Oco, Respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Mary Anne Oco was employed by petitioner Tegimenta Chemical Philippines, owned by Vivian Rose D. Garcia. Due to her pregnancy, Oco incurred absences and tardiness from March to April 2002. Garcia advised her to take a vacation from May 1 to 15, 2002. Upon her return, Oco worked for four days. However, on May 21, 2002, Garcia allegedly told her not to report for work anymore. Oco complied but called at the month’s end, only to be informed she had no job. She subsequently filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.
Petitioners countered that Oco had abandoned her job by going on absence without official leave (AWOL). They argued they could not have terminated her as she still had accountabilities to settle. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Oco, finding her dismissal illegal. The NLRC affirmed this decision. The Court of Appeals initially reversed, finding no dismissal but mere AWOL, but upon reconsideration, reinstated the NLRC’s ruling, prompting this petition.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in finding that respondent Mary Anne Oco was illegally dismissed and did not abandon her employment.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA’s resolution. The legal logic centers on the burden of proof in dismissal cases and the definition of abandonment. In termination disputes, the employer bears the burden to prove that the dismissal was for a just or authorized cause. Petitioners failed to discharge this burden. The claim of abandonment requires proof of a clear, deliberate, and unjustified refusal to resume employment, coupled with an intent to sever the employer-employee relationship.
The Court found no such proof. Oco’s act of reporting for work immediately after her approved vacation negated any intention to abandon her job. Her prompt filing of an illegal dismissal case further demonstrated her desire to continue employment, not to abandon it. Petitioners’ evidence, such as payroll notations, was deemed insufficient to prove abandonment, as these were unsupported and internally inconsistent. The CA’s reversal of its own initial decision was a proper exercise of its prerogative to correct an error, not a capricious act constituting grave abuse of discretion. Therefore, the finding of illegal dismissal stands.