G.R. No. 212861 - Mallo vs. Southeast Asian College, Inc.

Melvin P. Mallo, initially hired as a Probationary Full-Time Faculty Member with Southeast Asian College, Inc. (SACI) for the Second Semester of School Year (SY) 2007-2008, filed a complaint alleging unfair labor practices, illegal dismissal, underpayment of salary/wages, damages, and attorney’s fees.
Mallo’s employment was renewed for succeeding semesters up to the Summer Semester of SY 2010-2011, during which he asserted that his status had become permanent after nearly four years of service.

For the First Semester of SY 2011-2012, Mallo inquired on June 3 and 8, 2011 about his teaching load but was told assignments were still pending.
On June 15, 2011, he learned through a colleague that teaching loads had already been distributed in faculty meetings held on June 9 and 10, 2011.
Mallo confronted the Dean of the College of Nursing, Dr. Clarita D. Curato, claiming permanent employment status and demanding a teaching load; Dr. Curato responded that as a contractual employee, he was under no obligation to be given any teaching load.

Respondents maintained that as early as April 2011, a teaching load had been assigned to Mallo for the First Semester of SY 2011-2012 as a Clinical Instructor for the College of Nursing’s Preceptorship Program, originally intended to be conducted at the National Center for Mental Health (NCMH).
After Mallo twice failing the qualifying tests at NCMH, SACI reassigned him as a Clinical Instructor for the Preceptorship Program at the United Doctors Medical Center (UDMC), beginning June 23, 2011.
Mallo accepted the new assignment but later requested a change in schedule, which was denied due to implications on the school’s prearranged NLRE schedule.
Mallo did not attend classes at UDMC from June 23 to 25, 2011, and subsequently indicated a conflict with his new employment when contacted by an SACI official. Following this, he ceased to report for work and later initiated the complaint.

The Labor Arbiter (LA) ruled on July 30, 2012, that Mallo had been illegally dismissed.

The LA ordered payment of backwages, separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, service incentive leave pay, 13th month pay, and attorney’s fees.
It noted that despite evidence of failing the qualifying tests at NCMH, Mallo was continuously engaged over several semesters, thereby affirming his regular employee status.

The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the LA’s decision in its Resolution dated December 28, 2012, rejecting arguments of insufficient service or evidence of abandonment on Mallo’s part.

However, the NLRC reduced the 13th month pay award based on prior payments made by SACI.

Respondents sought reconsideration through a Resolution dated February 6, 2013, which was denied.
The Court of Appeals (CA) rendered a Decision on February 25, 2014, modifying the NLRC ruling by declaring that Mallo had abandoned his job, thereby nullifying his claims to backwages, separation pay, and attorney’s fees, although retaining awards for service incentive leave pay and 13th month pay.

Mallo contended that the lack of a proper teaching load constituted his illegal dismissal.
Respondents argued that they had provided him with a teaching assignment, and that his subsequent non-attendance and refusal to accept a schedule change, compounded by his new employment, amounted to abandonment of his job.
The case thus centers on whether Mallo’s actions signified a deliberate abandonment or whether they were indicative of an unresolved employment dispute following an inadequate assignment.

Whether the rules and evidentiary record support that Mallo was illegally dismissed due to the failure to assign him his proper teaching load.

Did Mallo’s consistent inquiries and long service demonstrate an expectation of continued employment rather than disinterest?
Can the mere act of non-attendance be equated with an intentional abandonment of duty?

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly ruled that Mallo abandoned his job, thereby relieving SACI of liability for backwages, separation pay, and attorney’s fees.

Was there sufficient evidence to prove a deliberate and unjustified refusal to resume employment?
Does the employer bear the burden to prove that Mallo manifestly intended to sever the employee-employer relationship?