G.R. No. 190794 ; February 22, 2012
JOSAN, JPS, SANTIAGO CARGO MOVERS, and MARY GRACE S. PARUNGAO, Petitioners, vs. EDUARDO RAMOS ADUNA, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioners, engaged in the trucking business, hired respondent Eduardo Aduna as a delivery truck driver on a per-trip payment basis. On December 5, 2005, a contentious incident occurred. Petitioners allege Aduna reported for work drunk, hurled invectives at manager Mary Grace Parungao, and later punched a co-employee, Raymond dela Cruz, within company premises. Aduna did not report for work thereafter. Petitioners claim that when Aduna returned on January 24, 2006, he informed a company secretary he no longer wished to work and requested a certificate of employment, constituting abandonment. Conversely, Aduna denies being drunk or assaultive. He asserts he was told to “lie low” after the incident and wait for further notice, which never came. He contends he was effectively barred from work and that the certificate was issued without his request, arguing he was constructively dismissed.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Eduardo Aduna was illegally dismissed or whether he voluntarily abandoned his employment.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that Aduna was illegally dismissed. The legal logic centers on the burden of proof in dismissal cases and the concept of constructive dismissal. 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 Court found no clear evidence that Aduna was terminated for the alleged misconduct of intoxication and fighting, as no written notice or formal investigation was presented. More critically, the claim of abandonment was unsubstantiated. Abandonment requires a clear, deliberate, and unjustified refusal to resume employment, coupled with an overt act showing a definitive intent to sever the employment relationship. Aduna’s failure to report for approximately 50 days was not a product of his own volition but a consequence of being instructed to “lie low.” His subsequent request for a certificate of employment, viewed in context, was a reasonable act to ascertain his employment status after being sidelined indefinitely, not proof of an intent to abandon. The employer’s failure to communicate, recall him, or inquire about his prolonged absence negated the claim of abandonment. Consequently, the prolonged inaction by petitioners, which effectively deprived Aduna of work, amounted to constructive dismissal—a dismissal in disguise due to the employer’s acts of clear discrimination, insensibility, or disdain, rendering continued employment impossible. The Labor Arbiter’s decision was reversed, and the findings of the NLRC and Court of Appeals were affirmed.