Saturday, July 05, 2008 Abandonment By Dominador A. Almirante Labor case digest
PETITIONER Joel Macahilig was on vacation leave without pay for the whole month of January 2001 as a cost-saving measure adopted by respondent Aracell De Jesus Boutique due to reduction in sales. The boutique was closed on January 22 and reopened only on February 8, 2001. Petitioner called up respondent to ask when he was to resume his work.
In a case for illegal dismissal, respondent invoked the defense of abandonment. Did the defense prosper?
Ruling: No.
Jurisprudence holds that for abandonment of work to exist, it is essential (1) that the employee must have failed to report for work or must have been absent without valid or justifiable reason; and (2) that there must have been a clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship as manifested by some overt acts. Deliberate and unjustified refusal on the part of the employee to go back to his work post and resume his employment must be established. Absence must be accompanied by overt acts unerringly pointing to the fact that the employee simply does not want to work anymore. And the burden of proof to show that there was unjustified refusal to go back to work rests on the employer.
Petitioner’s absence was not due to his deliberate refusal to continue his employment, but because private respondent temporarily closed the boutique shop in order for her to cut down on electricity and the daily meal and transportation allowances of her sales clerks. (Joel Custodio Macahilig vs. NLRC, et. al., G.R. No. 158095, November 23, 2007).
