Leyte Lumber, a construction supply and hardware store, hired Fernando as a sales representative.
As a company policy, Leyte Lumber’s sales representatives were prohibited from getting items or stocks from the storage area by themselves. They were to course the orders through authorized checkers before the items are released. They were also prohibited from leaving their designated work areas without their superior’s consent. Moreover, they were required to submit their applications for leave days before the intended dates to allow the management ample time to approve the application and to adjust the workforce and their workload.
Fernando allegedly overstepped the boundaries of Leyte Lumber’s company policies. One day, when Fernando was on his way to the stock room to follow up on a customer’s urgent order when Leyte Lumber’s general manager stopped him. The next day, the general manager saw Fernando step out of the store to check the availability of a ball caster in the storage area.
Leyte Lumber’s general manager required Gososo to produce a letter of apology for the two incidents under pain of dismissal. Admitting fault, Fernando submitted a letter of apology stating that he was just doing his job for Leyte Lumber’s clients and that he never intended to neglect his duties or disobey the company policy. The general manager allegedly refused to accept the letter of apology and instructed Fernando to revise his to reflect the statements “I am not supposed to approach the checker” and “I promise again to ask permission from manager before I can go out.”
The next day, Fernando was shown a prepared document, which he refused to sign since the document contained admissions of offenses that he did not commit. Irked by Fernando’s refusal, the general manager informed him of his termination from work and even threw a pair of scissors at him.
Aggrieved, Fernando filed a complaint for illegal constructive dismissal against Leyte Lumber.
Was Fernando illegally dismissed from employment.
The Court ruled in the negative.
The Court reiterated established principles in that in illegal dismissal cases, the employee must first establish by substantial evidence the fact of dismissal before the employer is charged with the burden of proving its legality.
In the present case, the Court found that Fernando failed to prove that he was dismissed in the first place. Specifically, the Court discovered that he simply alleged that on October 11, 2008, upon his refusal to sign a document prepared by Leyte Lumber’s general manager, the latter was angrily told him that he was terminated from work on that very day, and even threw sharp scissors that almost hit him. The Court stated that this barely measured up to the minimum evidential requirement from Fernando. This is because mere acts of hostility, however grave, committed by the employer towards the employee cannot on their lonesome be construed as an overt directive of dismissal from work.
The Court added that assuming that Fernando was truly dismissed from employment, he still failed to demonstrate that Leyte Lumber did it constructively. According to the Court, although Fernando alleged that he was forced to sign a prepared incriminatory letter and then fired when he refused to do so, no evidence supported such allegation. The Court said that bare allegations deserve no legal credit for being self-serving.
The Court further stated that even if these accusations were adequately corroborated, the general manager’s rebuke of Fernando, while overbearing and intimidating, was reasonably incited by the latter’s violations of Leyte Lumber’s company practices. For the Court the rebuke did not amount to unequivocal acts of discrimination, insensibility, or disdain as to render Fernando’s continued employment as unbearable.
The Court concluded that no working basis constrains it to declare Fernando as dismissed, whether legally, illegally, or constructively.
Did Fernando abandon his employment?
The Court ruled that Fernando did not abandon his employment.
The Court said that abandonment requires the concurrence of the following: (1) the employee must have failed to report for work or must have been absent without valid or justifiable reason; and (2) there must have been a clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship manifested by some overt acts. Abandonment is a matter of intention and cannot lightly be presumed from equivocal acts. Absence must be accompanied by overt acts pointing definitely to the fact that the employee simply does not want to work anymore. The burden of proof to show that there was unjustified refusal to go back to work rests on the employer.
In the present case, the Court found that Leyte Lumber failed to discharge this burden of proof of abandonment. It just surmised that Fernando had no intent to return to work when he allegedly went on an unapproved leave of absence on October 11, 2008, of which it was also the approving authority. No attendance sheet of any sort was submitted to substantiate its claim. Neither did it show that it denied Fernando’s application for leave.
The Court stressed that mere absence or simple failure to report for work is not abandonment, more so if the employee was able to lodge his complaint before the labor tribunals with haste. An immediate filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal, more so when it includes a prayer for reinstatement, is inconsistent with a charge of abandonment. The Court said that employees like Fernando who take steps to protest their alleged dismissal cannot be said to have abandoned their work.
Further reading:
- Gososo v. Leyte Lumber Yard and Hardware, Inc., G.R. No. 205257, January 13, 2021.
