GR 196573; (October, 2013) (Digest)
G.R. No. 196573 ; October 16, 2013
VICTORINO OPINALDO, Petitioner, vs. NARCISA RAVINA, Respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Narcisa Ravina, proprietor of St. Louisse Security Agency, employed petitioner Victorino Opinaldo as a security guard. In August 2006, the client, PAIJR Furniture, requested Opinaldo’s relief due to perceived physical unfitness. Ravina acceded, reassigned Opinaldo to another client in September 2006, and required him to submit a medical certificate. After working for two weeks at the new post and receiving his salary, Opinaldo ceased reporting. He later filed a complaint for monetary claims with the DOLE, which was settled via a quitclaim on November 27, 2006.
On December 22, 2006, Opinaldo returned to Ravina’s office. He alleged that Ravina informed him he was no longer an employee, linking his status to the signed quitclaim. Ravina countered that she did not dismiss him but merely withheld new assignments pending his submission of the required medical clearance. Opinaldo subsequently filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.
ISSUE
Whether or not petitioner Victorino Opinaldo was illegally dismissed.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that Opinaldo was NOT illegally dismissed. The legal logic centers on the nature of abandonment and the employer’s prerogative to require fitness for duty. The Court found that Opinaldo abandoned his job. His cessation of work after his reassignment and receipt of salary, coupled with his failure to report back or submit the required medical certificate, constituted a clear and deliberate intent to sever the employment relationship. Abandonment is a voluntary act, and his inaction demonstrated such intent.
Furthermore, the quitclaim executed in the prior DOLE settlement pertained only to monetary claims and did not constitute a waiver of his right to contest dismissal, nor did it serve as proof of dismissal itself. The employer’s act of requiring a medical certificate was a valid exercise of management prerogative, especially given the client’s complaint and the nature of security work which demands physical fitness. Ravina’s failure to immediately provide a new assignment was justified pending compliance with this reasonable requirement. Thus, no dismissal, illegal or otherwise, occurred; Opinaldo severed the tie through his own abandonment.