GR 199314; (December, 2015) (Digest)
G.R. No. 199314, December 7, 2015
TAMBLOT SECURITY & GENERAL SERVICES, INC., Petitioner, vs. FLORENCIO ITEM, ET AL., Respondents.
FACTS
Respondents were security guards employed by petitioner and deployed at Marcela Mall. Following a misunderstanding between respondent Florencio Item and the mall’s security officer, he was relieved from duty. After consulting a lawyer regarding underpayment, this information was shared with co-respondents, prompting them to file a labor standards complaint with the DOLE. During a meeting, petitioner’s representatives urged them to withdraw the complaint. Upon their refusal, all respondents were subsequently relieved from their posts at the mall. Respondents then withdrew their DOLE complaint and instead filed complaints for illegal dismissal.
Petitioner countered that it did not dismiss the respondents but merely reassigned them, alleging that the guards refused to report for their new assignments, thereby abandoning their work. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint. The NLRC, on appeal, ruled the complaint was prematurely filed but awarded separation pay to only two respondents who properly signed the appeal notice. The Court of Appeals reversed the NLRC, declaring all respondents were constructively dismissed.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that respondents were constructively dismissed and not guilty of abandonment of work.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the CA’s finding of constructive dismissal. The legal logic rests on the established doctrine that abandonment is a matter of intention and cannot be lightly inferred. For abandonment to exist, two elements must concur: (1) the employee’s failure to report for work without valid reason, and (2) a clear intention to sever the employment relationship, as manifested by overt acts. The burden of proving these elements rests on the employer.
The Court found that petitioner failed to discharge this burden. The factual findings of the NLRC and CA, which are accorded respect and finality in a Rule 45 petition limited to errors of law, established that petitioner did not present sufficient evidence to prove abandonment. Critically, the immediate filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal strongly negates any suggestion of an intention to abandon one’s work, as it demonstrates a desire to seek redress and return to work. Since petitioner utterly failed to establish the requisite clear intention to abandon, its defense must fail. Consequently, the relieving of respondents from their posts following their protected activity of filing a complaint constituted constructive dismissal.