Title
Asphalt and Cement Pavers, Inc. vs. Leogardo, Jr.
Case
G.R. No. 74563
Decision Date
Jun 20, 1988
Employees dismissed for alleged abandonment: Villafuerte’s dismissal upheld due to employment elsewhere during leave; San Juan’s ruled illegal as leave was verbally approved. Reinstatement and backwages ordered for San Juan.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 74563)

Facts:

Employment Background

  • Petitioner: Asphalt and Cement Pavers, Inc., a corporation engaged in the construction business.
  • Respondents:
    • Ignacio Villafuerte, employed as a heavy equipment mechanic.
    • Loreto San Juan, employed as a heavy equipment operator.

Ignacio Villafuerte’s Case

  • On August 17, 1978, Villafuerte applied for a leave of absence from August 16 to 31, 1978, which was approved.
  • During his leave, he was contracted to overhaul a bulldozer for Super Structures, Inc. on a "pakiao" basis.
  • He applied for and was granted an extension of his leave up to September 7, 1978, but failed to report for work on September 8, 1978.
  • On September 12, 1978, petitioner wrote him a letter advising him of his absence without leave and giving him three days to reply. He did not respond.
  • On September 25, 1978, petitioner filed an application to terminate Villafuerte for abandonment of work.
  • Petitioner later discovered that Villafuerte had been employed by Super Structures, Inc. since September 16, 1978.

Loreto San Juan’s Case

  • On April 14, 1978, San Juan was allowed by petitioner to temporarily work for Super Structures, Inc.
  • On August 29, 1978, he was advised to report back to work on September 1, 1978, which he did.
  • However, he was absent without leave from September 12 to 18, 1978.
  • On September 19, 1978, he requested permission to go on leave from September 20 to October 5, 1978. Although he did not see the president, the office manager verbally authorized his leave.
  • On September 25, 1978, petitioner filed an application to terminate San Juan for abandonment of work.
  • When San Juan returned on October 2, 1978, he was informed of his dismissal.

Complaint and Proceedings

  • On October 3, 1978, Villafuerte and San Juan filed a joint complaint for illegal dismissal, unpaid wages, and other claims.
  • The Ministry of Labor and Employment heard the case and ordered the reinstatement of both employees with backwages.
  • Petitioner appealed, but the Deputy Minister of Labor affirmed the order, modifying the backwages to a fixed period of three years.
  • Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari to reverse the order.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • (Unlock)

Ratio:

  1. Abandonment of Work: For abandonment to be a valid cause for dismissal, there must be a deliberate and unjustified refusal to resume employment. Mere absence is insufficient; overt acts indicating the employee’s intent to abandon must be proven.
  2. Burden of Proof: The employer bears the burden of proving just cause for dismissal. Failure to do so renders the dismissal unjustified.
  3. Security of Tenure: The Constitution and Labor Code guarantee security of tenure. Employees dismissed without just cause are entitled to reinstatement and backwages.
  4. Distinction Between Cases: Villafuerte’s case involved clear evidence of abandonment (employment with another company), while San Juan’s case lacked such evidence and showed immediate action to contest his dismissal.


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.