Lawyerly

GR No. 190724

2014-03-12

BRION, J.

Moreover, and as the CA pointed out, Llamas lost no time in filing the illegal dismissal case against them. To recall, he filed the complaint on July 18, 2005 or only two days from the third time he was refused access to his assigned taxi cab on July 16, 2005. Clearly, Llamas could not be deemed to have abandoned his work for, as we have previously held, the immediate filing by the employee of an illegal dismissal complaint is proof enough of his intention to return to work and negates the employer's charge of abandonment.[41] To reiterate and emphasize, abandonment is a matter of intention that cannot lightly be presumed from certain equivocal acts of the employee.[42]

GR No. 164860

2010-02-02

HILTON HEAVY EQUIPMENT CORPORATION v. ANANIAS P. DY

CARPIO, J.

Petitioners assert that Dy abandoned his work. To constitute abandonment, two elements must concur: (1) the failure to report for work or absence without valid or justifiable reason, and (2) a clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship, with the second element as the more determinative factor and being manifested by some overt acts.[12] In the present case, Dy reported for work after the mauling incident only on 19 May 2000, after petitioner Lim called him to the office. On the other hand, apart from Dy's absence, petitioners failed to show any evidence of Dy's clear intent to sever his ties with petitioners.

GR No. 172670

2009-01-20

RBC CABLE MASTER SYSTEM v. MARCIAL BALUYOT

PUNO, J.

To constitute abandonment, two elements must concur: (1) the failure to report for work or absence without valid or justifiable reason, and (2) a clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship, with the second element as the more determinative factor and being manifested by some overt acts. Mere absence is not sufficient. The employer has the burden of proof to show a deliberate and unjustified refusal of the employee to resume his employment without any intention of returning.[14]

GR No. 163210

2008-08-13

LEPANTO CONSOLIDATED MINING COMPANY v. MORENO DUMAPIS

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

While it is true that administrative or quasi-judicial bodies like the NLRC are not bound by the technical rules of procedure in the adjudication of cases, this procedural rule should not be construed as a license to disregard certain fundamental evidentiary rules. The evidence presented must at least have a modicum of admissibility for it to have probative value.[26] Not only must there be some evidence to support a finding or conclusion, but the evidence must be substantial. Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla.[27] It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.[28] Thus, even though technical rules of evidence are not strictly complied with before the LA and the NLRC, their decision must be based on evidence that must, at the very least, be substantial.[29]

GR No. 167637

2007-09-28

METRO EYE SECURITY v. JULIE V. SALSONA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Nonetheless, the right of an employer to dismiss employees on the ground of loss of trust and confidence must not be exercised arbitrarily and without just cause. Unsupported by sufficient proof, loss of confidence is without basis and may not be successfully invoked as a ground for dismissal. Loss of confidence as a ground for dismissal has never been intended to afford an occasion for the employer's abuse of prerogative, as the loss can easily be subject to abuse because of its subjective nature,[29] as in the case at bar, and must be founded on clearly established facts sufficient to warrant the employee's separation from work.[30]

GR NO. 163706

2007-03-29

DIVINE WORD COLLEGE OF SAN JOSE v. HERMINIA G. AURELIO

QUISUMBING, J.

Thus, loss of trust and confidence is a valid ground for dismissing an employee, provided that the loss of confidence arises from particular proven facts. Termination of employment on this ground does not require proof beyond reasonable doubt of the employee's misconduct. It is sufficient that there is some basis for the loss of trust, or that the employer has reasonable ground to believe that the employee is responsible for the misconduct which renders him unworthy of the trust and confidence demanded by his position.[24] As the nature of his position is grounded on the trust and confidence reposed on him by his employer, the latter is given wide latitude of discretion in terminating him for lack or absence thereof.[25] In order to constitute a just cause for dismissal, the act complained of must be related to the performance of the duties of the employee such as would show him to be thereby unfit to continue working for the employer.[26] Moreover, for loss of trust and confidence to be a valid ground for an employee's dismissal, it must be substantial and not arbitrary, and must be founded on clearly established facts sufficient to warrant the employee's separation from work.[27]

GR NO. 150591

2005-06-27

NORTHWEST TOURISM CORP. v. FORMER SPECIAL THIRD DIVISION OF CA

CARPIO, J.

To constitute abandonment of work, two elements must concur: (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 on the part of the employee to sever the employer-employee relationship manifested by some overt act.[20] 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.[21] Mere absence is not sufficient. There must be an unequivocal intent on the part of the employee to discontinue his employment.[22]

GR No. 130935

2000-05-11

ALLAN VILLAR v. NLRC

BELLOSILLO, J.

Abandonment is a matter of intention and cannot lightly be presumed from certain equivocal acts. To constitute abandonment, there must be clear proof of deliberate and unjustified intent to sever the employer-employee relationship.[7] Mere absence of the employee is not sufficient. The burden of proof to show a deliberate and unjustified refusal of an employee to resume his employment without any intention of returning rests on the employer.[8]

GR No. 116384

2000-02-07

VIOLA CRUZ v. NLRC

PURISIMA, J.

For unexplained absence to constitute abandonment, there must be a clear, deliberate and unjustified refusal on the part of the employee to continue his employment, without any intention of returning.[7] The Court has repeatedly held that mere absence does not suffice to constitute abandonment. The absence must be accompanied by overt acts unerringly showing that the employee simply does not want to work anymore. In the case of Artemio Labor, et al. vs. NLRC and Gold City Commercial Complex, Inc. and Rudy Uy,[8] it was held that to constitute abandonment, two elements must concur, to wit: (1) the failure to report for work or absence without valid or justifiable reason, and (2) clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship, with the second element as the more determinative factor and being manifested by some overt acts.

GR No. 116384

2000-02-07

VIOLA CRUZ v. NLRC

PURISIMA, J.

In the case of Artemio Labor, et al. vs. NLRC, Gold City Commercial Complex, Inc. and Rudy Uy,[12] this Court held that the right of an employer to dismiss employees on the ground of loss of trust and confidence must not be exercised arbitrarily and without just cause. For loss of trust and confidence to be a valid ground for dismissal of an employee, it must be substantial and founded on clearly established facts sufficient to warrant the employee's separation from employment. Loss of confidence must not be used as a subterfuge for causes which are improper, illegal or unjustified; it must be genuine, not a mere afterthought, to justify earlier action taken in bad faith.[13] Because of its subjective nature, this Court has been very scrutinizing in cases of dismissal based on loss of trust and confidence because the same can easily be concocted by an abusive employer. Thus, when the breach of trust or loss of confidence theorized upon is not borne by clearly established facts, such dismissal on the ground of loss and confidence cannot be allowed. In the case under consideration, evidence is utterly wanting as to the defalcation allegedly perpetrated by the petitioner. Consequently, her dismissal on the ground of loss of confidence cannot be countenanced.

	GR No. 190724 2014-03-12	DIAMOND TAXI v. FELIPE LLAMAS BRION, J.
Moreover, and as the CA pointed out, Llamas lost no time in filing the illegal dismissal case against them. To recall, he filed the complaint on July 18, 2005 or only two days from the third time he was refused access to his assigned taxi cab on July 16, 2005. Clearly, Llamas could not be deemed to have abandoned his work for, as we have previously held, the immediate filing by the employee of an illegal dismissal complaint is proof enough of his intention to return to work and negates the employer's charge of abandonment.[41] To reiterate and emphasize, abandonment is a matter of intention that cannot lightly be presumed from certain equivocal acts of the employee.[42]
	GR No. 164860 2010-02-02	HILTON HEAVY EQUIPMENT CORPORATION v. ANANIAS P. DY CARPIO, J.
Petitioners assert that Dy abandoned his work. To constitute abandonment, two elements must concur: (1) the failure to report for work or absence without valid or justifiable reason, and (2) a clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship, with the second element as the more determinative factor and being manifested by some overt acts.[12] In the present case, Dy reported for work after the mauling incident only on 19 May 2000, after petitioner Lim called him to the office. On the other hand, apart from Dy's absence, petitioners failed to show any evidence of Dy's clear intent to sever his ties with petitioners.
	GR No. 172670 2009-01-20	RBC CABLE MASTER SYSTEM v. MARCIAL BALUYOT PUNO, J.
To constitute abandonment, two elements must concur: (1) the failure to report for work or absence without valid or justifiable reason, and (2) a clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship, with the second element as the more determinative factor and being manifested by some overt acts. Mere absence is not sufficient. The employer has the burden of proof to show a deliberate and unjustified refusal of the employee to resume his employment without any intention of returning.[14]
	GR No. 163210 2008-08-13	LEPANTO CONSOLIDATED MINING COMPANY v. MORENO DUMAPIS AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
While it is true that administrative or quasi-judicial bodies like the NLRC are not bound by the technical rules of procedure in the adjudication of cases, this procedural rule should not be construed as a license to disregard certain fundamental evidentiary rules. The evidence presented must at least have a modicum of admissibility for it to have probative value.[26] Not only must there be some evidence to support a finding or conclusion, but the evidence must be substantial. Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla.[27] It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.[28] Thus, even though technical rules of evidence are not strictly complied with before the LA and the NLRC, their decision must be based on evidence that must, at the very least, be substantial.[29]
	GR No. 167637 2007-09-28	METRO EYE SECURITY v. JULIE V. SALSONA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Nonetheless, the right of an employer to dismiss employees on the ground of loss of trust and confidence must not be exercised arbitrarily and without just cause. Unsupported by sufficient proof, loss of confidence is without basis and may not be successfully invoked as a ground for dismissal. Loss of confidence as a ground for dismissal has never been intended to afford an occasion for the employer's abuse of prerogative, as the loss can easily be subject to abuse because of its subjective nature,[29] as in the case at bar, and must be founded on clearly established facts sufficient to warrant the employee's separation from work.[30]
	GR NO. 163706 2007-03-29	DIVINE WORD COLLEGE OF SAN JOSE v. HERMINIA G. AURELIO QUISUMBING, J.
Thus, loss of trust and confidence is a valid ground for dismissing an employee, provided that the loss of confidence arises from particular proven facts. Termination of employment on this ground does not require proof beyond reasonable doubt of the employee's misconduct. It is sufficient that there is some basis for the loss of trust, or that the employer has reasonable ground to believe that the employee is responsible for the misconduct which renders him unworthy of the trust and confidence demanded by his position.[24] As the nature of his position is grounded on the trust and confidence reposed on him by his employer, the latter is given wide latitude of discretion in terminating him for lack or absence thereof.[25] In order to constitute a just cause for dismissal, the act complained of must be related to the performance of the duties of the employee such as would show him to be thereby unfit to continue working for the employer.[26] Moreover, for loss of trust and confidence to be a valid ground for an employee's dismissal, it must be substantial and not arbitrary, and must be founded on clearly established facts sufficient to warrant the employee's separation from work.[27]
	GR NO. 150591 2005-06-27	NORTHWEST TOURISM CORP. v. FORMER SPECIAL THIRD DIVISION OF CA CARPIO, J.
To constitute abandonment of work, two elements must concur: (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 on the part of the employee to sever the employer-employee relationship manifested by some overt act.[20] 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.[21] Mere absence is not sufficient. There must be an unequivocal intent on the part of the employee to discontinue his employment.[22]
	GR No. 130935 2000-05-11	ALLAN VILLAR v. NLRC BELLOSILLO, J.
Abandonment is a matter of intention and cannot lightly be presumed from certain equivocal acts. To constitute abandonment, there must be clear proof of deliberate and unjustified intent to sever the employer-employee relationship.[7] Mere absence of the employee is not sufficient. The burden of proof to show a deliberate and unjustified refusal of an employee to resume his employment without any intention of returning rests on the employer.[8]
	GR No. 116384 2000-02-07	VIOLA CRUZ v. NLRC PURISIMA, J.
For unexplained absence to constitute abandonment, there must be a clear, deliberate and unjustified refusal on the part of the employee to continue his employment, without any intention of returning.[7] The Court has repeatedly held that mere absence does not suffice to constitute abandonment. The absence must be accompanied by overt acts unerringly showing that the employee simply does not want to work anymore. In the case of Artemio Labor, et al. vs. NLRC and Gold City Commercial Complex, Inc. and Rudy Uy,[8] it was held that to constitute abandonment, two elements must concur, to wit: (1) the failure to report for work or absence without valid or justifiable reason, and (2) clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship, with the second element as the more determinative factor and being manifested by some overt acts.
	GR No. 116384 2000-02-07	VIOLA CRUZ v. NLRC PURISIMA, J.
In the case of Artemio Labor, et al. vs. NLRC, Gold City Commercial Complex, Inc. and Rudy Uy,[12] this Court held that the right of an employer to dismiss employees on the ground of loss of trust and confidence must not be exercised arbitrarily and without just cause. For loss of trust and confidence to be a valid ground for dismissal of an employee, it must be substantial and founded on clearly established facts sufficient to warrant the employee's separation from employment. Loss of confidence must not be used as a subterfuge for causes which are improper, illegal or unjustified; it must be genuine, not a mere afterthought, to justify earlier action taken in bad faith.[13] Because of its subjective nature, this Court has been very scrutinizing in cases of dismissal based on loss of trust and confidence because the same can easily be concocted by an abusive employer. Thus, when the breach of trust or loss of confidence theorized upon is not borne by clearly established facts, such dismissal on the ground of loss and confidence cannot be allowed. In the case under consideration, evidence is utterly wanting as to the defalcation allegedly perpetrated by the petitioner. Consequently, her dismissal on the ground of loss of confidence cannot be countenanced.

ARTEMIO LABOR v. NLRC