Case Summary (G.R. No. 188711)
Key Dates and Procedural Posture
Employment began July 1991; alleged cessation of reporting by Escudero: July 2003; complaint for illegal dismissal filed September 1, 2004 (seeking reliefs including underpayment of wages, COLA, and 13th month pay); Labor Arbiter decision November 24, 2004; NLRC Resolution November 30, 2005 (affirming Labor Arbiter) and NLRC Resolution January 31, 2006 (denying reconsideration); CA decision February 16, 2009 (denying certiorari petition); CA resolution denying reconsideration June 26, 2009; Supreme Court decision affirming CA on July 8, 2013.
Facts Found by the Lower Tribunals
Escudero alleged sustained late and non-payment of salary beginning July 2003 and that after office remodeling in early 2004 the corporation rented out her office, stopped giving her assignments, and effectively deprived her of wages and work, compelling her to stop reporting. Tan Brothers countered that Escudero was a daily-wage earner paid P155.00 per day who abandoned her employment in July 2003, and that Escudero took most payrolls, vouchers, other documents, and an Olivetti typewriter worth P15,000. Tan Brothers submitted payrolls/vouchers (1997–2000) and a DOLE Regional Office No. 9 inspection report clearing it of labor standards violations.
Procedural History and Claims
Labor Arbiter found constructive dismissal and awarded separation pay and backwages; NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter and deemed the employer’s claim about the typewriter and records a retaliatory afterthought; Tan Brothers sought certiorari relief from the CA, arguing abandonment as a just cause under Article 282 of the Labor Code and contending that awards of backwages and separation pay were unfounded; the CA denied the petition, holding abandonment unproved and upholding constructive dismissal. The Supreme Court reviewed the CA decision on questions of law under Rule 45.
Issues Presented to the Court
Primary legal issues: (1) whether Escudero abandoned her employment, thereby negating any illegal dismissal claim and justifying termination; and (2) whether the awards of backwages and separation pay were legally sustainable given the asserted abandonment. Subsidiary factual questions concerned alleged appropriation of employer property and whether procedural due process (two-notice requirement) supported termination.
Standard of Review and Scope of Judicial Inquiry
The Supreme Court reiterated that review of CA decisions in Rule 45 petitions is generally confined to questions of law and does not permit re-evaluation of factual findings by quasi-judicial labor tribunals. Factual determinations by the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC, especially when affirmed by the CA, are accorded finality and are binding on the Court so long as supported by substantial evidence. Determinations of abandonment and constructive dismissal are principally factual and best left to labor tribunals with subject-matter expertise.
Legal Standard on Abandonment and Burden of Proof
Abandonment is defined as a deliberate and unjustified refusal to resume employment with clear and deliberate intent to discontinue employment without intention to return; it is a form of neglect of duty and a just cause for termination under Article 282 (b) of the Labor Code. Two elements must concur: (1) failure to report for work or absence without valid reason, and (2) a clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship, the latter requiring overt acts manifesting the intent to quit. The employer bears the burden of proving abandonment by substantial evidence; intention cannot be lightly inferred or legally presumed from equivocal acts.
Application of Law to the Facts — Why Abandonment Was Not Proved
The Court affirmed the CA’s finding that Tan Brothers failed to meet its burden. Tan Brothers’ assertions were primarily bare allegations that Escudero stopped reporting in July 2003 and that she appropriated company property and records; the employer presented no documentary or testimonial evidence proving deliberate intent to abandon. The record showed that Escudero continued to report for work despite irregular wage payments until May 2004, when non-payment compelled her to stop reporting. The absence of a return-to-work notice and the subsequent filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal (even though Escudero prayed for separation pay in lieu of reinstatement) were inconsistent with a clear intent to sever employment. The alleged appropriation of property was reported only after the filing of the complaint and was treated by the tribunals as an afterthought; unsubstantiated accusations without opportunity for confrontation and refutation do not establish
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 188711)
Case Citation, Court and Panel
- Supreme Court of the Philippines, Second Division, G.R. No. 188711, July 08, 2013; reported at 713 Phil. 392.
- Decision penned by Justice Perez; concurred in by Justices Carpio (Chairperson), Brion, Del Castillo, and Perlas-Bernabe.
- Case originated from CA-G.R. SP No. 01028-MIN (Court of Appeals, Mindanao Station) and arose from NLRC Case No. RAB-09-09-00255-2004 before the Regional Arbitration Branch No. IX of the National Labor Relations Commission.
Procedural History
- Employment and complaint:
- Respondent Edna R. Escudero was hired in July 1991 as bookkeeper by petitioner Tan Brothers Corporation of Basilan City (Tan Brothers).
- On 1 September 2004, Escudero filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, underpayment of wages, cost of living allowance and 13th month pay, docketed as NLRC Case No. RAB-09-09-00255-2004.
- Labor Arbiter:
- Labor Arbiter Joselito B. De Leon rendered a decision on 24 November 2004 finding Tan Brothers guilty of constructive dismissal and awarding monetary reliefs to Escudero.
- NLRC:
- Fifth Division of the NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s decision in its Resolution dated 30 November 2005 (NLRC CA No. M-008350-2005).
- Tan Brothers’ motion for reconsideration was denied by the NLRC on 31 January 2006.
- Court of Appeals:
- Tan Brothers filed a Rule 65 petition with the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 01028-MIN).
- The Court of Appeals rendered a decision on 16 February 2009 denying the petition and affirming the NLRC in toto.
- A motion for reconsideration by Tan Brothers was denied by the CA in its 26 June 2009 Resolution.
- Supreme Court:
- Tan Brothers filed a Rule 45 Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court, which rendered judgment on 8 July 2013, denying the petition and affirming the CA decision in toto.
Facts as Found in the Record
- Employment relationship:
- Escudero served as bookkeeper from July 1991.
- Salary and alleged non-payment:
- Escudero alleged in her position paper that starting July 2003 her monthly salary of P2,500.00 was not paid on time, and that after an office remodeling in early 2004 the office she used was rented out and she ceased receiving assignments.
- Escudero claimed she was eventually constrained to stop reporting for work because of dire financial condition due to unpaid wages and thus characterized her separation as constructive dismissal.
- Tan Brothers asserted Escudero was paid a daily wage of P155.00 and claimed she abandoned her employment when she stopped reporting in July 2003.
- Employer’s counter-allegations and evidence:
- Tan Brothers alleged that Escudero took most of the corporation’s payrolls, vouchers and other material documents, and appropriated an Olivetti typewriter worth P15,000.00 without consent.
- Tan Brothers lodged a complaint with the barangay authorities of Seaside, Isabela City on 6 September 2004 concerning the alleged misappropriation.
- Tan Brothers submitted remaining vouchers and payrolls prepared by Escudero covering 24 December 1997 to 31 July 2000, and presented the result of a DOLE Regional Office No. 9 inspection which cleared it of violations of labor standards.
Labor Arbiter’s Findings and Award
- Findings:
- The Labor Arbiter ruled Tan Brothers constructively dismissed Escudero by withholding her salaries and stopping use of her services despite her presence at work.
- The Arbiter rejected Tan Brothers’ claim of abandonment and its allegation regarding the typewriter, noting the cause of action for the latter, if any, belonged to regular courts.
- The Labor Arbiter found documentary evidence of payments unavailing to negate constructive dismissal.
- Monetary awards:
- Separation pay: P48,508.80.
- Backwages: P68,720.80.
- Total monetary award: P117,229.60.
NLRC Proceedings and Rulings
- NLRC Fifth Division:
- On 30 November 2005, the NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s decision in toto.
- The NLRC agreed that Escudero was constructively dismissed.
- The NLRC characterized the employer’s claim regarding the typewriter, raised after the employee’s complaint, as retaliatory and an afterthought.
- NLRC denial of reconsideration:
- Tan Brothers’ motion for reconsideration was denied by the NLRC on 31 January 2006 for lack of merit.
Court of Appeals Decision
- Ruling (16 February 2009):
- The Court of Appeals denied Tan Brothers’ Rule 65 petition and affirmed the NLRC’s resolution.
- CA found Escudero constructively dismissed when Tan Brothers ceased paying salaries and ceased giving work assignments.
- CA ruled abandonment was not established because petitioner failed to show Escudero intended to sever the employer-employee relationship; mere absence does not prove abandonment.
- CA noted filing of an illegal dismissal complaint by the employee negates abandonment, and it dismissed Tan Brothers’ claim regarding the typewriter and corporate records for lack of showing that Escudero had been confronted and given opportunity to refute the charges.
- CA denial of motion for reconsideration:
- Tan Brothers’ motion for reconsideration was denied on 26 June 2009.
Issues Presented to the Supreme Court
- Primary issue:
- Whether Escudero abandoned her employment such that the employer’s characterization of abandonment would bar recovery for illegal dismissal and attendant benefits.
- Ancillary claims:
- Whether the CA erred in holding that the filing of an illegal dismissal complaint negates abandonment.
- Whether the award of backwages and separation pay was legally sustainable given the alleged abandonment.
Supreme Court’s Scope of Review and Standards
- Scope of review:
- The Supreme Court emphasized that review in Rule 45 petitions is generally confined to errors of law and does not extend to re-evaluating sufficiency of evidence.
- Questions of fact — such as whether abandonment or illegal dismissal occurred — are best left to quasi-judicial agencies (Labor Arbiter, NLRC) that possess expertise and whose factual findings are accorded great respect and finality if supported by substantial evidence.
- Standa