G.R. No. 200405 , February 26, 2020
JS Unitrade Merchandise, Inc., Petitioner, v. Ruperto S. Samson, Jr., Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Ruperto S. Samson, Jr. was hired by petitioner JS Unitrade Merchandise, Inc. on February 14, 2005, and rose through the ranks to become Associate Area Sales Manager for South Luzon with a monthly salary of P45,000.00 by February 1, 2007. He received awards for excellent performance. However, by mid-2007, management noted a decline in his performance, citing issues like frequent out-of-stock inventory and poor promotional execution in his area. Through a memorandum dated September 6, 2007, he was directed to report to the head office in Pasig City to perform administrative tasks such as performance review, planning, and account reconciliation, while retaining his title and salary. Feeling harassed and humiliated by this reassignment to clerical work, Samson stopped reporting for work on September 18, 2007, filed a complaint for constructive dismissal before the NLRC, and returned company-issued items. The company issued a show-cause memo and later a Notice of Dismissal dated October 8, 2007, for abandonment.
The Labor Arbiter found no constructive dismissal but ruled that the penalty of dismissal was too harsh for a one-week absence; it considered Samson suspended and awarded him six months of backwages (P270,000.00) and separation pay in lieu of reinstatement due to strained relations (P135,000.00). The NLRC reversed, holding the transfer was a valid management prerogative and that Samson had abandoned his employment. The Court of Appeals reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s award of separation pay but deleted the backwages, finding neither constructive dismissal nor abandonment, but a misunderstanding between the parties.

ISSUE

1. Did respondent abandon his employment?
2. Assuming no abandonment, is he entitled to separation pay?

RULING

1. No, respondent did not abandon his employment. 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. Respondent’s act of immediately filing a complaint for constructive dismissal after his reassignment negates any intention to abandon his job. His failure to report for work was a reaction to the perceived unfair treatment and demotion in duties, not a voluntary severance.
2. Yes, respondent is entitled to separation pay in lieu of reinstatement. While there was no illegal dismissal, reinstatement was no longer feasible due to the strained relations between the parties, as correctly observed by the Labor Arbiter. When reinstatement is not viable—such as when the employer-employee relationship has been severely strained—an award of separation pay is justified. Therefore, the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed the award of separation pay.
The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals.