G.R. No. 205257 , January 13, 2021
FERNANDO C. GOSOSO, PETITIONER, VS. LEYTE LUMBER YARD AND HARDWARE, INC., AND RUBEN L. YU, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioner Fernando C. Gososo was a sales representative for respondent Leyte Lumber Yard and Hardware, Inc., with respondent Ruben L. Yu as its general manager. Company policies prohibited sales representatives from personally getting items from the storage area and from leaving their work areas without superior consent, and required advance filing of leave applications.
On October 6 and 7, 2008, Gososo was seen by Yu going to the stock room and stepping out of the store, allegedly violating company policies. Yu required Gososo to submit a letter of apology under pain of dismissal. Gososo submitted an apology on October 8, 2008, but Yu instructed him to revise it with specific admissions. Gososo submitted the revised letter on October 9, 2008.
Gososo claimed that on October 11, 2008, Yu presented him with a prepared document to sign containing admissions of offenses he did not commit. Upon Gososo’s refusal, Yu informed him of his termination and allegedly threw a pair of scissors at him. Gososo filed a Complaint for illegal constructive dismissal and monetary claims on October 13, 2008.
Respondents countered that Gososo violated policies and submitted a letter admitting his transgressions. They issued him a Memorandum on October 10, 2008, reminding him of the policies and giving a final warning. They claimed Gososo filed a leave for October 11, 2008, which was unapproved, and did not report for work. They issued another Memorandum on October 13, 2008, requesting him to report back or be considered to have abandoned his work. Gososo did not return.
The Executive Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint, finding Gososo planned to leave due to “tyrannical management” and was on unapproved leave on October 11, 2008. The NLRC reversed, finding illegal dismissal, and awarded backwages, separation pay, damages, and attorney’s fees. The Court of Appeals reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s dismissal, ruling Gososo’s claim was bare and self-serving and that he abandoned his work.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Court of Appeals correctly determined that petitioner Gososo abandoned his work and was legally dismissed.
2. Whether petitioner is entitled to separation pay and other monetary claims.

RULING

1. No, the Court of Appeals erred. Petitioner was illegally dismissed. The burden of proving a valid dismissal is on the employer. Respondents failed to substantiate their claim of abandonment with clear evidence of Gososo’s deliberate and unjustified refusal to resume work without intention of returning. Gososo’s filing of an illegal dismissal complaint immediately on October 13, 2008, negated any intention to abandon his employment. His act of going on an unapproved leave, by itself, is not equivalent to abandonment. The alleged October 10, 2008 Memorandum, which Gososo refused to acknowledge, and the October 13, 2008 Memorandum, issued after he had already filed his complaint, were insufficient to prove abandonment. Respondents did not comply with the twin requirements of notice and hearing for a dismissal based on neglect of duty. Gososo’s dismissal was illegal.
2. Petitioner is entitled to separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, but not to other monetary claims as awarded by the NLRC. Due to the strained relations between the parties, reinstatement is not feasible. Gososo is entitled to separation pay equivalent to one month’s salary for every year of service. However, the awards for moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees are deleted due to lack of basis. The award for backwages is also set aside. The computation of separation pay should be based on Gososo’s latest daily salary rate of P220.00, and his length of service from June 16, 1997, to October 11, 2008, which is 11 years and nearly 4 months, considered as 12 years for computation purposes.