G.R. No. 152133 - Calimutan vs. People

Ernesto Brown was employed by Marswin Marketing, Inc. (Marswin) as a building maintenance/electrician starting on October 5, 2009, earning a daily salary of P500.00.
His work assignment involved maintaining the sanitation and electrical functions at Marswin’s warehouse in Valenzuela.
On June 7, 2010, Brown filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, non-payment of salary and 13th month pay, as well as claims for moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees.
In his complaint, Brown prayed for reinstatement with full backwages and other monetary claims, asserting that his termination was executed without proper due process.

On May 28, 2010, Brown was summoned to the Main Office for a discussion regarding complaints received from the Warehouse Manager and Supervisor.
During the meeting, he was informed of various alleged infractions such as disobedience to instructions, not responding to calls for errands, and other performance-related issues.
Marswin/Tan contended that Brown excused himself during the meeting purportedly to contact his wife but then failed to return, thereby amounting to abandonment of work.
They maintained that Brown was not a regular employee engaged in tasks essential to their business and that his absence justified his dismissal.

Brown claimed that upon being summoned on May 28, 2010, he was told that it was already his last day of work.
He alleged that he was coerced to sign a document he did not understand and thereafter was barred from returning to work.
Brown maintained that his filing of an illegal dismissal case and a subsequent prayer for reinstatement reflected his intention to continue his employment, thereby negating any claim of abandonment.

The LA declared Brown’s dismissal illegal and ordered his reinstatement without loss of seniority.
The LA directed Marswin to pay full backwages from the date of dismissal until actual reinstatement, as well as the 13th month pay, dismissing other claims for lack of merit.

On December 19, 2011, the NLRC affirmed the LA decision, holding that the evidence (notably an affidavit by Ms. Azucena) was hearsay and of poor evidentiary value.
The NLRC highlighted that due process was not afforded to Brown as he was not given the opportunity to confront his accusers nor was he notified to report back to work.
On January 31, 2012, the NLRC denied Marswin/Tan’s Motion for Reconsideration.

On January 18, 2013, the CA reversed the NLRC and LA decisions, declaring that Brown was legally dismissed because he allegedly abandoned his work.
The CA ruled that there was no sufficient evidence that Brown was prevented or restrained from returning to work, relying heavily on Ms. Azucena’s affidavit.
In a subsequent Resolution dated April 23, 2013, the CA denied Brown’s Motion for Reconsideration.

Brown elevated the case, contending that the CA gravely erred by reversing the lower tribunal’s decisions which had found his dismissal illegal.
The sole issue raised pertained to whether the CA’s reversal was legally and factually erroneous.

Whether the CA gravely erred in reversing the NLRC and Labor Arbiter’s decisions that found Brown’s dismissal illegal.
Whether Marswin/Tan failed to discharge its burden of proving that Brown committed abandonment—a necessary element for a lawful dismissal on such ground.
Whether the CA’s reliance on the hearsay affidavit of Ms. Azucena, which did not specify any overt act by Brown, was sufficient to sustain a finding of abandonment.