G.R. No. 214940 , June 06, 2018
MARIA DELEON TRANSPORTATION, INC., represented by MA. VICTORIA D. RONQUILLO, Petitioner vs. DANIEL M. MACURAY, Respondent

FACTS

Respondent Daniel Macuray filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against petitioner Maria De Leon Transportation, Inc., claiming he was employed as a bus driver since 1991. He alleged that in November 2009, the company’s dispatcher stopped assigning a bus to him without reason and later informed him he was considered absent without leave (AWOL). He contended he made follow-ups for about six months in 2010 to no avail, effectively dismissing him without notice or explanation after 18 years of service. He sought backwages, separation pay, retirement benefits, and other monetary claims.
Petitioner countered that Macuray was a commission-based driver on a “no work, no pay” arrangement and had permanently abandoned his employment effective March 31, 2009, by failing to report for work. The company asserted he took a new job driving his family’s truck and that management never terminated him. It argued that drivers sometimes stopped reporting for extended periods but were allowed to return, and that Macuray never properly inquired with management about his status. The Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) dismissed the complaint, finding no constructive dismissal and concluding Macuray had abandoned his job.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Daniel Macuray was illegally dismissed or had abandoned his employment.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that Macuray was illegally dismissed. The Court emphasized that in termination cases, the burden of proof rests on the employer to show that the dismissal was for a just or authorized cause. Petitioner failed to discharge this burden. The claim of abandonment was not substantiated, as abandonment requires a clear, deliberate, and unjustified refusal to resume employment, coupled with an intent to sever the employer-employee relationship. Macuray’s actions of repeatedly following up on his work status negated any such intent.
The Court found petitioner’s narrative inconsistent and unreliable. Its claim that drivers could arbitrarily stop working and later return undermined its assertion of a fixed employment policy and instead suggested a practice condoning irregular attendance without formal termination. This inconsistency cast doubt on the abandonment defense. Furthermore, the Court noted that Macuray, having reached the age of 62 during the proceedings, was entitled to retirement pay under Article 287 of the Labor Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7641 . Consequently, the Court awarded him unpaid commissions for January to March 2009, retirement pay, attorney’s fees, and legal interest. The appellate court’s decision was reversed.