GR 177812; (June, 2013) (Digest)
G.R. No. 177812 ; June 19, 2013
CONCRETE SOLUTIONS, INC./PRIMARY STRUCTURES CORPORATION, represented by ANASTACIO G. ARDIENTE, JR., Petitioners, vs. ARTHUR CABUSAS, Respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Arthur Cabusas was hired by petitioners as a transit mixer driver for a specific batching plant project, with an employment contract stipulating his status as a project employee from June 28, 2000, to June 23, 2001. In February 2001, petitioners accused him of dishonesty for unloading and allegedly selling excess concrete mix away from the project site, resulting in a three-day suspension. In April 2001, a second incident arose where he was accused of stealing a company plastic drum, leading to his preventive suspension pending investigation. The administrative investigation concluded on May 4, 2001. While petitioners were deliberating on the second charge, they discovered a discrepancy in Cabusas’s SSS registration. They then claimed he had been absent without official leave (AWOL) since May 6, 2001, and sent him a termination letter on June 12, 2001, citing abandonment. Cabusas, however, had already filed a complaint for illegal dismissal on May 30, 2001.
ISSUE
The core issue was whether respondent Arthur Cabusas was illegally dismissed.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the findings of the Court of Appeals and the NLRC that Cabusas was illegally dismissed. The legal logic centered on the failure of petitioners to prove just cause for termination and the flawed claim of abandonment. For abandonment to be valid, two elements must concur: (1) the employee’s failure to report for work or absence without valid reason, and (2) a clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship. The Court found the second element utterly lacking. Cabusas had actively participated in the investigation until May 4 and was awaiting its result. His filing of an illegal dismissal complaint on May 30, 2001, was a clear act inconsistent with an intent to abandon his job, as it constituted a positive step to assert his rights rather than sever the relationship. Petitioners’ termination based on alleged AWOL after this proactive legal move was unjustified.
Furthermore, the Court rejected the defense that Cabusas was a project employee. The petitioners failed to present substantial evidence, such as a report of project completion to the Department of Labor and Employment, to prove that his dismissal was due to the completion of his specific project. The termination letter itself cited abandonment, not project completion, as the cause. Consequently, the dismissal was declared illegal for lack of a valid and authorized cause under the Labor Code.