Case Digest: EG&I Construction & Galeos v. Sato, Berdin & Lacida, Jr., et al.
G.R. No. 182070: February 16, 2011
E.G & I. CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION and EDSEL GALEOS, Petitioners, v. ANANIAS P. SATO, NILO BERDIN, ROMEO M. LACIDA, JR., and HEIRS OF ANECITO S. PARANTAR, SR., namely: YVONNE, KIMBERLY MAE, MARYKRIS, ANECITO, JR., and JOHN BRYAN, all surnamed PARANTAR, Respondents.
NACHURA, J.:
FACTS:
Respondent Sato was hired in October 1990 by petitioner E.G. & I. Construction Corporation as a grader operator, which is considered as technical labor. In April 2004, Sato discovered that petitioner corporation had not been remitting his premium contributions to the Social Security System (SSS). When Sato kept on telling petitioners to update his premium contributions, he was removed as a grader operator and made to perform manual labor, such as tilling the land in a private cemetery and/or digging earthworks in petitioner corporation’s construction projects. Thereafter, petitioners told Sato that they could no longer afford to pay his wages, and he was advised to look for employment in other construction companies.
Meanwhile, the project engineer of respondents Berdin, Parantar, and Lacida instructed them to affix their signatures on various documents. They refused to sign the documents because they were written in English, a language that they did not understand. Irked by their disobedience, the project engineer terminated their employment.
Petitioners denied that they illegally terminated respondents’ employment. According to them, respondents abandoned their work when they failed to report for work
The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision finding that respondents were illegally dismissed from employment. In lieu of reinstatement, due to the strained relations of the parties and as prayed for by respondents, each of them was granted separation pay equivalent to one (1) month pay for every year of service. On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the ruling of the Labor Arbiter. This was then reversed by the CA and ruled that the respondents were illegally dismissed.
ISSUE: Whether or not the CA erred in reinstating the decision of the Labor Arbiter, declaring that respondents were illegally terminated from employment by petitioner corporation.
HELD:
The petition lacks merit.
LABOR LAW: Abandonment
Petitioner corporation failed to prove that respondents were dismissed for just or authorized cause. In an illegal dismissal case, theonus probandi rests on the employer to prove that the dismissal of an employee is for a valid cause.
For abandonment to exist, it is essential (a) that the employee must have failed to report for work or must have been absent without valid or justifiable reason; and (b) that there must have been a clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship manifested by some overt acts. The employer has the burden of proof to show the employee's deliberate and unjustified refusal to resume his employment without any intention of returning. Mere absence is not sufficient. There must be an unequivocal intent on the part of the employee to discontinue his employment. Here, the reason why respondents failed to report for work was because petitioner corporation barred them from entering its construction sites.
DENIED.
E.G & I. CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION and EDSEL GALEOS, Petitioners, v. ANANIAS P. SATO, NILO BERDIN, ROMEO M. LACIDA, JR., and HEIRS OF ANECITO S. PARANTAR, SR., namely: YVONNE, KIMBERLY MAE, MARYKRIS, ANECITO, JR., and JOHN BRYAN, all surnamed PARANTAR, Respondents.
NACHURA, J.:
FACTS:
Respondent Sato was hired in October 1990 by petitioner E.G. & I. Construction Corporation as a grader operator, which is considered as technical labor. In April 2004, Sato discovered that petitioner corporation had not been remitting his premium contributions to the Social Security System (SSS). When Sato kept on telling petitioners to update his premium contributions, he was removed as a grader operator and made to perform manual labor, such as tilling the land in a private cemetery and/or digging earthworks in petitioner corporation’s construction projects. Thereafter, petitioners told Sato that they could no longer afford to pay his wages, and he was advised to look for employment in other construction companies.
Meanwhile, the project engineer of respondents Berdin, Parantar, and Lacida instructed them to affix their signatures on various documents. They refused to sign the documents because they were written in English, a language that they did not understand. Irked by their disobedience, the project engineer terminated their employment.
Petitioners denied that they illegally terminated respondents’ employment. According to them, respondents abandoned their work when they failed to report for work
The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision finding that respondents were illegally dismissed from employment. In lieu of reinstatement, due to the strained relations of the parties and as prayed for by respondents, each of them was granted separation pay equivalent to one (1) month pay for every year of service. On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the ruling of the Labor Arbiter. This was then reversed by the CA and ruled that the respondents were illegally dismissed.
ISSUE: Whether or not the CA erred in reinstating the decision of the Labor Arbiter, declaring that respondents were illegally terminated from employment by petitioner corporation.
HELD:
The petition lacks merit.
LABOR LAW: Abandonment
Petitioner corporation failed to prove that respondents were dismissed for just or authorized cause. In an illegal dismissal case, theonus probandi rests on the employer to prove that the dismissal of an employee is for a valid cause.
For abandonment to exist, it is essential (a) that the employee must have failed to report for work or must have been absent without valid or justifiable reason; and (b) that there must have been a clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship manifested by some overt acts. The employer has the burden of proof to show the employee's deliberate and unjustified refusal to resume his employment without any intention of returning. Mere absence is not sufficient. There must be an unequivocal intent on the part of the employee to discontinue his employment. Here, the reason why respondents failed to report for work was because petitioner corporation barred them from entering its construction sites.
DENIED.
