Case Summary (G.R. No. 93476)
Abandonment of Position: Definition and Requirements
- To establish abandonment of position, there must be a clear intention to abandon the job, accompanied by overt acts indicating a lack of interest in continuing employment.
- In this case, the petitioner expressed a willingness to retain Lising if he reported for duty within three days, which he failed to do.
- Instead of returning to work, Lising filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, explicitly seeking separation pay rather than reinstatement.
- The principle that abandonment is inconsistent with filing for illegal dismissal does not apply here, as Lising rejected reinstatement and sought separation pay.
Separation Pay: Definition and Applicability
- Separation pay is defined as the compensation an employee receives upon severance from employment, intended to support them while seeking new employment.
- Under the Labor Code, separation pay is due when an employee's services are validly terminated due to retrenchment, business closure, or health issues.
- It may also be awarded as a measure of social justice in cases of valid dismissal for reasons other than serious misconduct.
- The doctrine allowing separation pay for inept conduct does not apply here, as Lising was not dismissed but rather caused his own separation by refusing to return to work.
Employer's Prerogative in Personnel Assignment
- The assignment of personnel is a management prerogative of the employer, and there is no evidence that Lising's reassignment was intended to force him out of employment.
- Lising did not provide satisfactory reasons for refusing to be transferred to another client.
- The Court concluded that Lising effectively severed his employment through his continued absence without official leave, which constituted abandonment.
- The petitioner was justified in considering Lising's services terminated due to his own actions.
Legal Findings on Dismissal and Separation Pay
- The Court found that Lising's employment was not terminated by the petitioner but rather that Lising abandoned his position.
- The letter from the petitioner indicated that Lising's assignment was withdrawn, but he remained employed and could have been reassigned.
- The Court emphasized that Lising's refusal to re...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 93476)
Case Overview
- The case involves A'Prime Security Services, Inc. (petitioner) and Florentino Lising (private respondent), a security guard employed by the petitioner.
- Lising was detailed to a U.S. Mission facility at the Clark Air Base, Angeles City, where he was accused of sleeping while on duty.
- Following an investigation, Lising's employment was terminated, leading him to file a complaint for illegal dismissal and related claims.
Facts of the Case
- Private respondent Florentino Lising was employed by A'Prime Security Services, Inc. and assigned to the Regional Relay Facilities (RRF).
- On September 8, 1988, Lising was relieved of his supervisory duties after security officer Alan Gentile reported he had been found sleeping on duty.
- An internal investigation confirmed Lising had been caught sleeping on duty multiple times, although he only admitted to this once.
- Following his relief, Lising went AWOL starting September 15, 1988, after being notified of his impending transfer to another client.
- Lising filed a complaint for illegal dismissal on October 13, 1988, seeking separation pay and back wages, not reinstatement.
Labor Arbiter's Decision
- Labor Arbiter Oswald B. Lorenzo ruled in favor of Lising, stating he was illegally dismissed and ordering reinstatement with full back wages.
- Lising's claim for overtime pay was dismissed for lack of basis.