G.R. No. L-61965; April 3, 1990
NUEVA ECIJA I ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. (NEECOI), petitioner, vs. MINISTER OF LABOR and OSCAR S. ANGELES, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Nueva Ecija I Electric Cooperative, Inc. (NEECO) filed an application with the Ministry of Labor for clearance to terminate the employment of private respondent Oscar S. Angeles, a Project Engineer, on grounds of direct insubordination, abandonment of work, conduct unbecoming, refusal to report for work, and habitual tardiness. NEECO alleged that Angeles, after being assigned to a new substation project in February 1979, reported only on the first two days and then was absent without approved leave from February 28 to March 16, 1979, constituting abandonment.
Angeles opposed the application, denying the grounds as false. He asserted he coordinated with the project engineer until April 1979, as supported by an affidavit, and that his absences were due to attending to family matters with the verbal permission of the General Manager. He further presented copies of letters dated September to November 1979 indicating his desire to report back to work, claiming that when he attempted to return, the General Manager refused to accept him pending the resolution of the clearance application.

ISSUE

The primary issues were: (1) whether Angeles abandoned his work, constituting a just cause for termination; and (2) whether the Minister of Labor erred in ordering his reinstatement with full backwages despite NEECO’s claim that it had not yet dismissed him but was merely awaiting clearance.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed NEECO’s petition and affirmed the Minister of Labor’s decision, with the modification that backwages be limited to three years. On the first issue, the Court ruled that abandonment requires a clear, deliberate, and unjustified refusal to resume employment, evidenced by overt acts indicating the employee no longer intends to work. Mere absence is insufficient. Here, Angeles’ intention not to abandon was demonstrated by his letters expressing his willingness to return and the sworn affidavit of the project engineer confirming coordination. NEECO’s own act of paying his salary for part of the alleged abandonment period further weakened its claim.
On the second issue, the Court held that NEECO’s refusal to accept Angeles back when he reported for work, under the pretext of awaiting the clearance order, constituted an effective dismissal. Since the law at the time required prior clearance from the Minister of Labor before termination, and no clearance had been granted, this dismissal was illegal. Consequently, the order for reinstatement with backwages was proper, as the refusal to reinstate amounted to termination without the required authorization. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion in the public respondent’s ruling.