ON Aug. 31, 2010, petitioner Mehitabel, Inc. hired respondent Jufhel L. Alcuizar as its purchasing manager.
On Aug. 10, 2011, Rossana J. Arcenas, respondent’s immediate supervisor, wrote him a letter that his act of leaving the office without asking permission from said supervisor is a violation of the provision on abandonment of the company’s code of conduct. He was directed to report back to work immediately upon receipt of the letter and submit a written explanation why he should not be accordingly disciplined.
Instead of complying with the directive, respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal asking for reinstatement and backwages and other money claims.
When the case reached the Court of Appeals (CA), it ruled that respondent’s immediate filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal negated petitioner’s theory of abandonment.
Did the CA commit a reversible error?
Ruling: Yes.
Respondent cannot harp on the fact that he filed a complaint for illegal dismissal in proving that he did not abandon his post, for the filing of the said complaint does not ipso facto foreclose the possibility of abandonment. It is not the sole indicator in determining whether or not there was desertion, and to declare as an absolute that the employee would not have filed a complaint for illegal dismissal if he or she had not really been dismissed is non sequitur.
Apart from the filing of the complaint, the other circumstances surrounding the case must be taken into account in resolving the issue of whether or not there was abandonment.
This was the teaching in Basay v. Hacienda Consolacion wherein the Court can be quoted saying: “We are not persuaded by petitioners’ contention that nothing was presented to establish their intention of abandoning their work, or that the fact that they filed a complaint for illegal dismissal negates the theory of abandonment.”
It bears emphasizing that this case does not involve termination of employment on the ground of abandonment. As earlier discussed, there is no evidence showing that petitioners were actually dismissed. Petitioners’ filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal, irrespective of whether reinstatement or separation pay was prayed for, could not by itself be the sole consideration in determining whether they have been illegally dismissed. All circumstances surrounding the alleged termination should also be taken into account.
In the case at bar, there is sufficient basis for the NLRC’s finding that respondent had been indolent in his job.
The narration of Arcenas in her affidavit detailing the specific circumstances wherein respondent was remiss in his duties was substantiated by the electronic correspondences between respondent and his supervisors. A perusal of the emails revealed the clear dissatisfaction of the company officers with respondent’s dismal performance that led to missed shipments, delayed deliveries, and lost clientele. (Mehitabel, Inc. v. Jufhel L. Alcuizar, G.R. Nos. 223701-02, December 13, 2017).