Title
Angeles vs. Ferdez
Case
G.R. No. 160213
Decision Date
Jan 30, 2007
A secretary alleged illegal dismissal after her employer claimed she abandoned her job; courts ruled in her favor, citing lack of proof of abandonment and due process violations.
illegal dismissal
backwages
allowances
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. 160213)

Factual Background

Fernandez alleged that Angeles dismissed her in May 1998 without cause and in violation of due process, and that she was not notified of any reason and was not administratively investigated prior to her separation. She also claimed she was receiving a monthly salary of P6,000 at the time of dismissal. Angeles, in turn, denied illegal dismissal. She asserted that Fernandez abandoned her job in May 1998 despite being treated as a “member of the family,” including being given free board and lodging and a salary higher than the minimum wage. Angeles further claimed that after Fernandez left, she discovered missing money and records in Bon Chic, and that she ultimately had to close the shop in 1998 as a consequence of Fernandez’s departure.

The Labor Arbiter found that Fernandez did not abandon her employment and concluded that the circumstances showed an illegal dismissal, including the absence of notice to Fernandez of any charge of abandonment or of any accusation regarding the missing records and money, and the absence of any formal charge at all.

Proceedings Before the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC

Fernandez filed her complaint on January 19, 2000, docketed as NLRC Case No. RAB-CAR-01-0051-00, praying for reinstatement with full backwages and payment of monetary claims covering holiday and rest day premium pay, night shift differential, thirteenth month pay, and service incentive leave pay. After hearing, the Labor Arbiter ruled in Fernandez’s favor, ordering payment of backwages at P6,000 per month from 08 May 1998 to the finality of the decision, and separation pay equivalent to one-half month salary for every year of service, while dismissing other claims for lack of merit.

On appeal, the NLRC, in a resolution dated May 31, 2001, reversed the Labor Arbiter. The NLRC credited Angeles’s theory that Fernandez abandoned her employment to elope with a younger man, named Bong, after Angeles objected to the relationship. The NLRC also stated that Fernandez was allegedly instigated by Ferdinand Bucad, an employee of Angeles’s Las Marias Restaurant, who allegedly prodded other employees to file monetary claims. The NLRC noted that while the complaint was filed within the prescriptive period, it was filed only twenty months after the alleged dismissal, which the NLRC treated as consistent with abandonment. It also relied on the fact that Fernandez supposedly worked for another company after the incident, allegedly demonstrating abandonment despite Angeles’s alleged offer to rehire her. The NLRC concluded that there was no express or implied dismissal.

Court of Appeals Ruling

Upon further appeal, the Court of Appeals reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s decision. The appellate court held that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion by considering, on appeal, belated affidavits that introduced new allegations of Angeles, without affording Fernandez the right to rebut those allegations. The Court of Appeals also ruled that Angeles failed to establish clear evidence of Fernandez’s intent to abandon employment, emphasizing that Angeles did not inform Fernandez of the abandonment charge and did not give her the opportunity to explain her side.

The Court of Appeals thus reversed and set aside the NLRC resolutions dated May 31, 2001 and July 16, 2001, reinstating the Labor Arbiter’s Decision dated July 26, 2000.

Issues Raised in the Supreme Court

In her petition, Angeles raised whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion by accepting and considering her evidence for the first time on appeal, and whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding that Fernandez was not guilty of abandonment.

The core questions addressed by the Supreme Court were: (one) whether the NLRC could accept the employer’s new evidence or affidavits presented only on appeal; and (two) whether Fernandez abandoned her job.

The Parties’ Contentions

Angeles argued that the Court of Appeals erred in overturning the NLRC. She contended that the affidavits were self-serving and were not subjected to comment below by Fernandez. She further maintained that in labor proceedings, the presentation of evidence for the first time on appeal is allowed, and that due process in labor cases requires only an opportunity to be heard. She asserted that Fernandez was given such opportunity because she was allowed to file an answer to the memorandum of appeal and to submit counter-affidavits.

Fernandez countered that the employer’s submission of affidavits on appeal was a mere afterthought and had not been explained. She claimed that the NLRC deprived her of due process by considering those affidavits without giving her a meaningful chance to contest or rebut them. She also argued that she had promptly pursued her case and that she had no notice or warning that her failure to return would be treated as abandonment, while insisting that the filing of her complaint remained within the prescriptive period.

Legal Basis and Reasoning on the Evidence Submitted on Appeal

The Court held that while the NLRC is not generally precluded from receiving evidence even for the first time on appeal in labor cases—because technical rules of procedure are not binding—delay in the submission of evidence must be clearly explained and must adequately prove the employer’s allegation for termination.

The Court cited Tanjuan v. Philippine Postal Savings Bank, Inc., which stated that labor officials must use reasonable means to ascertain facts speedily and objectively with little regard to technicalities, but also that delay in submission of evidence should be clearly explained and should adequately prove the employer’s claimed termination ground. Applying this principle, the Court found that Angeles did not explain the belated submission of affidavits attributed to Anita Claveria, Rolando C. Villanueva, Bartolome Angeles, and Merline Jumawan, as well as unsworn statements of other persons included in the record. The Court rejected Angeles’s justification that admission was required in the interest of truth, justice, and fair play.

Thus, the Court treated the belated affidavits as failing to satisfy the due-process and adequacy requirements expected when they are introduced only on appeal.

Legal Basis and Reasoning on Abandonment

On the issue of abandonment, Angeles maintained that Fernandez voluntarily left work and ignored her efforts to persuade Fernandez to return. Angeles also stressed that Fernandez filed the complaint only twenty months after leaving and allegedly did so due to instigation and the prospect of monetary gain.

The Court did not accept abandonment. It reasoned first that the allegedly belatedly submitted affidavits did not actually state that Fernandez abandoned her employment. Likewise, the unsworn statements did not supply the missing fact of abandonment. The Court also found that certain allegations—such as clandestine nighttime visits—were not pertinent to abandonment. The Court further disregarded the claim that Fernandez was induced to complain because she had a child, as it did not establish abandonment. It also noted that Fernandez’s alleged swift employment elsewhere was asserted but not proven.

The Court then emphasized that, as a reminder, an employee who claims illegal dismissal and seeks non-payment of monetary benefits states a valid cause of action, and that abandonment requires two elements: (one) failure to report for work or absence without valid or justifiable reason; and (two) a clear intention to sever the employee-employer relationship, with the second element being more determinative and requiring overt acts. The Court found Angeles failed to show overt acts proving Fernandez’s clear intention to sever her employment with Bon Chic.

The Court also considered inconsistencies in Angeles’s narrative. Angeles alleged that Fernandez could not be located and that she failed to locate her. Yet the Court found that Fernandez’s prayer for reinstatement in her position paper demonstrated her intention to return. The Court concluded that even if the belated affidavits were considered, they did not amount to substantial evidence of abandonment.

The Court further held that Angeles’s reliance on Arc-Men Food Industries, Inc. v. NLRC was misplaced. In Arc-Men, the Court found that the labor tribunals erred in dismissing employer evidence merely because the employee filed a complaint inconsistent with a defense of abandonment. In the present case, however, the Court found no substantial evidence proving abandonment even taking into account the employer’s timing-based arguments. The Court also rejected Angeles’s attempt to treat the twenty-month delay in filing the complaint as implied abandonment. It explained that the complaint was filed within the four-year prescriptive period for illegal dismissal, and it cited prior rulings where delays of several months, including as much as eight months, nine months, two years and five months, were treated as non-issues.

Due Process: Written Notices for Termination and Charge of Abandonment

The Court added that, aside from failing to prove abandonment, Angeles likewise failed to serve the required written notices. It found that Angeles did not serve Fernandez the written notice containing the charge of abandonment to afford her the opportunity to be heard and defend herself, and it also did not serve a written notice stating Angeles’s decision to terminate with clear reasons. This failure reinforced the finding of illegal dismissal rather than abandonment.

Disposition: Reinstatement Not Feasible and Modified Monetary Awards

The Court held that the appellate court did not err in concluding that Fernandez did not abandon her work and that she was illegally dismissed. It reiterated that an unjustly dismissed employee is generally entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights, and to full backwages inclusive of allowances and other benefits or their moneta

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms