Saturday, March 01, 2008 Labor Case Digest: Abandonment By Dominador Almirante
Private respondent Romeo Labrague was a stevedore employed with petitioner Asian Terminals Inc. He absented from his work for more than one year because he was placed in detention due to his involvement in a killing incident.
For his failure to explain his absence without leave (AWOL), Labrague was dismissed from the service and when he reported for work following his acquittal, he was advised to file a new application so that he may be rehired.
Was his dismissal justified?
Ruling: No.
It is beyond dispute then that the underlying reason for respondent’s absences was his detention. The question is whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that such absences did not amount to abandonment as to furnish petitioners cause to dismiss respondent.
To justify the dismissal of respondent for abandonment, petitioners should have established by concrete evidence the concurrence of two elements: first, that respondent had the intention to deliberately and without justification abandon his employment or refuse to resume his work; and second, that respondent performed overt acts from which it may be deduced that he no longer intended to work.
Petitioners failed to discharge such burden of proof. Respondent’s absence, even after notice to return to work, cannot be equated with abandonment, especially when we take into account that the latter incurred said absences unwillingly and without fault.
Absences incurred by an employee who is prevented from reporting for work due to his detention to answer some criminal charge is excusable if his detention is baseless, in that the criminal charge against him is not at all supported by sufficient evidence. (Asian Terminals Inc. and Atty. Rodolfo G. Corvite Jr. versus NLRC et. al…G.R. No. 158458, Dec. 19, 2007).
