Case Digest (G.R. No. 214122)
Facts:
On April 18, 2008, petitioner Anthonel M. MiAano was hired as a nurse at Sto. Tomas General Hospital owned by respondent Dr. Nemesia Roxas-Platon. After a six-month training period, petitioner was regularized and had served for more than three years. In the Holy Week of 2011, petitioner took a three-day leave for urgent family matters. Upon his return, he allegedly experienced cold treatment from respondent Dr. Roxas-Platon and learned from a co-employee that the hospital no longer needed his services. On May 4, 2011, during a regular nurse meeting, petitioner was absent due to being off-duty, but upon reporting on May 7, he discovered that his name was removed from the duty schedule. Chief Nurse Vilma Dela Cueva informed him that Dr. Roxas-Platon did not want him to work until further notice. On May 9, petitioner was informed that he was suspended from May 5 to 18, 2011 for habitual tardiness, absence from meetings, and sleeping on duty, but he received no prior written notice
...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 214122)
Facts:
- Background and Employment History
- Petitioner Anthonel M. MiAano was hired as a nurse at Sto. Tomas General Hospital, owned by respondent Dr. Nemesia Roxas-Platon, on April 18, 2008.
- After a six-month traineeship, petitioner was regularized and subsequently worked for the respondents for over three years.
- Events Leading to the Dispute
- During the Holy Week of 2011, petitioner took a three-day leave for urgent family matters.
- Upon returning, he experienced unwelcome treatment, and was told by a co-employee that Dr. Roxas-Platon wanted him to resign as the hospital no longer needed him.
- On May 4, 2011, a regular meeting of nurses was held, which petitioner missed as he was off-duty.
- Scheduled to resume work on May 7, 2011, petitioner discovered he was not listed in the nurses' duty roster. Chief Nurse Vilma Dela Cueva informed him that Dr. Roxas-Platon no longer wanted him to work and instructed that he should not report for work until further notice.
- On May 9, 2011, petitioner was informed by hospital staff that he was suspended from May 5 to 18, 2011, without any prior written notice or stated reason.
- Petitioner reported for work on May 19, 2011, after the supposed suspension period, but again found his name missing in duty rosters and was told by the nursing department of his dismissal because Dr. Roxas-Platon "did not like him anymore."
- On May 25, 2011, petitioner was belatedly served a Memorandum of Suspension dated May 4, 2011, citing habitual tardiness, failure to attend the May 4 meeting, and sleeping while on duty as grounds for a two-week suspension.
- Despite persistent follow-ups and reporting to the hospital, petitioner was not given any work schedule and was finally informed by Chief Nurse Dela Cueva that he was dismissed, quoting: "Ayaw na ni doktora sa yo, ayaw ka na nyang magtrabaho, tanggal ka na sa trabaho."
- Respondents’ Position and Subsequent Actions
- Respondents claimed petitioner was validly suspended for the stated misconduct.
- After the suspension, they alleged petitioner did not report for work; therefore, assignments were given to other nurses in his absence.
- On June 6, 2011, the hospital sent petitioner a letter demanding a written explanation within five days why disciplinary action should not be imposed due to his failure to report for work. Petitioner did not comply.
- A July 7, 2011 letter summoned petitioner to appear before the hospital’s disciplinary committee on July 12, 2011, but he failed to appear.
- On July 28, 2011, petitioner’s employment was terminated on account of abandonment of work.
- Procedural History
- On May 30, 2011, petitioner filed a complaint for illegal suspension, illegal dismissal, non-payment of holiday pay, separation pay, damages, and attorney’s fees.
- The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of petitioner, finding the suspension and dismissal illegal and awarding backwages, separation pay, holiday pay, and attorney’s fees.
- The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s decision regarding illegal suspension and illegal dismissal, also awarding salary for the suspension period.
- Respondents’ motion for reconsideration was denied; they filed a petition for certiorari to the Court of Appeals (CA).
- The CA reversed the NLRC decision, ruling petitioner was validly dismissed on July 28, 2011, for abandonment and dismissed petitioner’s illegal dismissal complaint as premature, but upheld payment for the suspension period.
- Petitioner moved for reconsideration before the CA, which was denied.
- Present Petition
- Petitioner seeks to nullify the CA’s decision and resolution, arguing that he never abandoned his job, continued reporting despite no duty schedule, and was explicitly told by hospital authorities that he was dismissed.
- Respondents maintain petitioner abandoned his work and was validly dismissed.
Issues:
- Was petitioner illegally dismissed from his employment by respondents?
- Did petitioner abandon his employment justifying his dismissal on the grounds of abandonment?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)