G.R. No. L-74563 June 20, 1988
ASPHALT AND CEMENT PAVERS, INC., petitioner, vs. VICENTE LEOGARDO, JR., in his official capacity as Deputy Minister of Labor, LORETO SAN JUAN and IGNACIO VILLAFUERTE, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Asphalt and Cement Pavers, Inc. sought to terminate two employees, Ignacio Villafuerte and Loreto San Juan, for alleged abandonment of work. Villafuerte, a mechanic, was on approved leave but was discovered to have been contracted by another construction company, Super Structures, Inc., during his leave. After his leave expired, he failed to report for work and did not reply to the company’s written notice. Petitioner subsequently found a certification confirming Villafuerte’s employment with Super Structures, Inc. since September 16, 1978.
San Juan, an equipment operator, was temporarily allowed to work for the same other company but was recalled. He later incurred absences and claimed he verbally secured permission from the company’s office manager for a further leave. When he returned to follow up on his leave pay, he was informed he had been absent without leave and was subsequently dismissed. Petitioner filed applications to terminate both employees, who then jointly complained for illegal dismissal.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the dismissals of Villafuerte and San Juan were justified based on abandonment of work.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled differently for each employee. For Ignacio Villafuerte, the dismissal was upheld. The Court found clear evidence of abandonment. His failure to return after his approved leave, his lack of response to the written notice, and, crucially, the certification proving his subsequent employment with a competitor company, Super Structures, Inc., collectively demonstrated a deliberate and unjustified refusal to resume his employment. These overt acts manifested his intention to sever the employment relationship.
For Loreto San Juan, the dismissal was declared illegal. The Court emphasized the employer’s burden to prove a just cause for termination. Petitioner failed to present any evidence, unlike in Villafuerte’s case, that San Juan was working for another employer. His claim of verbal authorization for leave was uncontroverted, and he was not given the same written notice as Villafuerte. Mere absence is insufficient to prove abandonment; it must be coupled with clear evidence of a deliberate intent not to return. Petitioner did not meet this burden. Consequently, San Juan was ordered reinstated with three years’ backwages. The decision modified the labor official’s order, which had originally reinstated both employees.