G.R. No. 194001 , November 22, 2017
MARIA VILMA G. DOCTOR and JAIME LAO, JR., Petitioners vs. NII ENTERPRISES and/or MRS. NILDA C. IGNACIO, Respondents

FACTS

Petitioners Maria Vilma G. Doctor and Jaime Lao, Jr. were employed as a clerk and an aircon technician, respectively, by respondent NII Enterprises, a sole proprietorship owned by Nilda C. Ignacio. On February 10, 2004, a serious altercation occurred between Doctor and Ignacio, leading Doctor to file a barangay complaint for slander and threat. After conciliation failed, petitioners filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before the NLRC on February 24, 2004, alleging they were barred from work without cause or due process. Respondents countered that petitioners voluntarily abandoned their jobs after the argument, with Doctor ceasing to report and Lao similarly absenting himself without leave, and that the complaint was a scheme to secure funds for their wedding.
The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of petitioners, finding illegal dismissal and awarding backwages and separation pay, a decision affirmed with modification by the NLRC. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed, dismissing the complaint after finding that petitioners failed to substantiate their claim of dismissal and that respondents successfully proved the defense of abandonment. Petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the NLRC and in finding that petitioners were not illegally dismissed but had instead abandoned their employment.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the CA’s dismissal of the illegal dismissal complaint. The Court clarified that in termination disputes, the burden of proof initially rests with the employee to establish the fact of dismissal. Only upon such a prima facie showing does the burden shift to the employer to prove that the dismissal was for a just or authorized cause. The Court found that petitioners failed to discharge this initial burden.
Petitioners merely alleged they were “barred from reporting” but presented no substantial evidence, such as a notice of termination or credible testimony of an explicit dismissal order from Ignacio. Their act of filing the complaint, while indicative of a belief they were dismissed, is not conclusive proof of the fact of dismissal itself. Conversely, respondents credibly established the elements of abandonment: the failure to report for work without justifiable reason and a clear intention to sever the employment relationship, manifested by Doctor’s immediate filing of a barangay case and the joint labor complaint shortly after the altercation, without any attempt to return to work. The strained relationship, while a consequence of the dispute, did not equate to a constructive dismissal absent evidence of unbearable working conditions orchestrated by the employer. Thus, with no proof of dismissal, the complaint for illegal dismissal necessarily failed.