G.R. No. 226338 , June 17, 2020
ANTHONEL M. MIÑANO, PETITIONER, V. STO. TOMAS GENERAL HOSPITAL AND DR. NEMESIA ROXAS-PLATON, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioner Anthonel M. Miñano was a regular nurse employed by respondent Sto. Tomas General Hospital, owned by Dr. Nemesia Roxas-Platon. After returning from a three-day leave during the holy week of 2011, he received unwelcome treatment and was told a co-employee that Dr. Roxas-Platon wanted him to resign. On May 7, 2011, he reported for work per his schedule but found his name omitted from the duty roster. Chief Nurse Vilma Dela Cueva informed him that Dr. Roxas-Platon did not like him anymore and he could not work until told by the administration. On May 9, 2011, he was informed of a suspension from May 5 to 18, 2011, without prior written notice or reason. He received a belated Memorandum of Suspension dated May 4, 2011, citing habitual lateness, non-attendance at a meeting, and sleeping on duty. After his suspension, on May 19, 2011, his name remained absent from the duty list, and the nursing department told him he was already dismissed. After several follow-ups, Chief Nurse Dela Cueva confirmed his dismissal, stating, “Ayaw na ni doktora sa yo, ayaw ka na nyang magtrabaho, tanggal ka na sa trabaho.” He filed a complaint for illegal suspension and dismissal on May 30, 2011.
Respondents countered that petitioner was validly suspended for the stated infractions. They claimed that after his suspension, petitioner did not report for work. They sent him a letter on June 6, 2011, requiring him to explain his absence, and a notice for a disciplinary committee hearing on July 12, 2011, which he did not attend. Consequently, they terminated his employment on July 28, 2011, on the ground of abandonment.
The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of petitioner, declaring both his suspension and dismissal illegal, and awarded backwages, separation pay, holiday pay, and attorney’s fees. The NLRC affirmed this decision, adding payment for his salary during the suspension period. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding petitioner’s complaint premature and holding that he was validly dismissed for abandonment, though it maintained the award for his suspension period.

ISSUE

Was petitioner illegally dismissed?

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court ruled that petitioner was illegally dismissed. The Court found that the factual findings of the Court of Appeals were contrary to those of the labor tribunals, warranting a review. The circumstances—including the indifferent treatment by respondents, his exclusion from the work schedule after his leave, the illegal suspension without prior notice or hearing, and the repeated verbal communications from the Chief Nurse and nursing department that he was dismissed because Dr. Roxas-Platon did not like him anymore—led petitioner to reasonably believe his employment had been terminated. Thus, his filing of the illegal dismissal complaint was not premature.
The Court held that abandonment was not proven. Abandonment requires a clear, deliberate, and unjustified refusal to resume employment, coupled with an intent to sever the employer-employee relationship. Petitioner’s immediate filing of the complaint negated any intent to abandon. The respondents’ subsequent letters and notices for an administrative investigation were deemed an afterthought, as the dismissal was already a foregone conclusion communicated to petitioner. Therefore, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, reinstated the NLRC Decision, and directed the Labor Arbiter to recompute the monetary awards.