GR 182499; (October, 2009) (Digest)
G.R. No. 182499 ; October 2, 2009
CONCEPCION FAELDONIA, Petitioner, vs. TONG YAK GROCERIES, JAYME GO and MERLITA GO, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Concepcion Faeldonia worked as a sales/stock clerk for Tong Yak Groceries from March 1978. On January 26, 2000, she injured her foot on a rusted nail while on an errand for her employer. After initial treatment, her condition worsened, leading to a hospital diagnosis of diabetes and a subsequent operation. Respondents paid for her medical expenses. Upon her recovery, she secured an SSS Sickness Notification from the company physician certifying her fitness to resume work by April 20, 2000. However, when she reported for work on that date, she was told to resign and was no longer allowed to work. She filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.
Respondents denied dismissal, alleging they extended substantial medical assistance and required petitioner to submit a fitness certification from a government physician, which she failed to provide. They claimed she demanded separation pay due to her health and subsequently abandoned her job.
ISSUE
Was petitioner illegally dismissed from her employment?
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court ruled that petitioner was illegally dismissed. The burden of proof to show that the dismissal was for a just or authorized cause lies with the employer. Respondents failed to discharge this burden. Their claim of abandonment was inconsistent with the evidence. Petitioner actively secured and submitted a physician’s certification declaring her fit to work, which negates any intention to sever employment. The act of reporting for work on April 20, 2000, is the antithesis of abandonment, which requires a clear, deliberate, and unjustified refusal to resume work.
The Court found the respondents’ version of events illogical. An employee seeking separation benefits due to alleged physical incapacity would not simultaneously procure a certification affirming fitness to work. The factual findings of the NLRC, which credited petitioner’s narrative that she was refused work, were upheld as supported by substantial evidence. Consequently, the dismissal was illegal for lack of just cause and due process. The Court reinstated the NLRC decision ordering reinstatement with full backwages and awarded nominal damages for the procedural due process violation.