Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

VETERANS SECURITY AGENCY v. FELIPE GONZALVO

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 206942 2015-02-25	VICENTE C. TATEL v. JLFP INVESTIGATION SECURITY AGENCY PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
In this regard, the Court concurs with the finding of the NLRC that respondents failed to establish that Tatel abandoned his work. To constitute abandonment, two elements must concur: (a) the failure to report for work or absence without valid or justifiable reason, and (b) 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.[66] Abandonment is incompatible with constructive dismissal.[67]
	GR No. 206942 2015-02-25	VICENTE C. TATEL v. JLFP INVESTIGATION SECURITY AGENCY PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Moreover, Tatel refuted respondents' allegation that he did not heed their directive to return to work following his receipt of the November 26, 2009 Memorandum. The Court finds no compelling reason not to give credence to such rebuff, especially in light of the filing of the instant complaint for illegal dismissal. An employee who forthwith takes steps to protest his layoff cannot, as a general rule, be said to have abandoned his work, and the filing of the complaint is proof enough of his desire to return to work, thus negating any suggestion of abandonment.[69] As the Court sees it, it is simply incongruent for Tatel to refuse any offer of an assignment and thereafter, seek redress by filing a case for illegal dismissal.
	GR No. 206942 2015-02-25	VICENTE C. TATEL v. JLFP INVESTIGATION SECURITY AGENCY PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
[73] Veterans Security Agency, Inc. v. Gonzalvo, Jr., supra note 67, at 501, citing Nagusara v. NLRC, 352 Phil. 854, 865 (1998).
	GR No. 185269 2010-06-29	ELSA S. MALIG-ON v. EQUITABLE GENERAL SERVICES ABAD, J.
The company evidently placed Malig-on on floating status after being relieved as janitress in a client's workplace. But, as the Court has repeatedly ruled, such act of "off-detailing" Malig-on was not the equivalent of dismissal so long as her floating status did not continue beyond a reasonable time. But, when it ran up to more than six months, the company may be considered to have constructively dismissed her from work, that is, as of August 16, 2002.[6] Thus, her purported resignation on October 15, 2002 could not have been legally possible.
	GR No. 180718 2009-10-23	HENLIN PANAY COMPANY v. NLRC QUISUMBING, J.
Moreover, if Bolanos had indeed forsaken her job, she would not have bothered to file a complaint for illegal dismissal. It is well settled that the filing by an employee of a complaint for illegal dismissal is proof of her desire to return to work, thus negating the employer's charge of abandonment.[15]
	GR No. 156302 2009-04-07	HEIRS OF GEORGE Y. POE v. MALAYAN INSURANCE COMPANY CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The failure of respondent MICI to present the insurance policy - which, understandably, is not in petitioners' possession, but in the custody and absolute control of respondent MICI as the insurer and/or Rhoda as the insured - gives rise to the presumption that its presentation is prejudicial to the cause of respondent MICI.[61] When the evidence tends to prove a material fact which imposes a liability on a party, and he has it in his power to produce evidence which, from its very nature, must overthrow the case made against him if it is not founded on fact, and he refuses to produce such evidence, the presumption arises that the evidence, if produced, would operate to his prejudice and support the case of his adversary.[62]
	GR NO. 162813 2007-02-12	FAR EAST AGRICULTURAL SUPPLY v. JIMMY LEBATIQUE QUISUMBING, J.
An employee who takes steps to protest his layoff cannot by any stretch of imagination be said to have abandoned his work and the filing of the complaint is proof enough of his desire to return to work, thus negating any suggestion of abandonment.[11] A contrary notion would not only be illogical but also absurd.
	GR NO. 160769 2006-08-09	CITY TRUCKING v. ANTONIO BALAJADIA PUNO, J.
Abandonment is the deliberate and unjustified refusal of an employee to resume his employment.[11] It is one form of neglect of duty, hence, a just cause for termination of employment by the employer.[12] Mere absence does not equate to abandonment. To constitute abandonment, there must be a concurrence of: (1) the failure to report for work or absence without valid or justifiable reason;[13] (2) a deliberate intent of the employee to leave his work permanently;[14] and (3) overt act/s from which it may be inferred that the employee had no more intention to resume his work.[15] This burden of proving that there was a deliberate and unjustified refusal on the part of the employee to resume his employment without any intention of returning rests on the employer.[16]
	GR NO. 160769 2006-08-09	CITY TRUCKING v. ANTONIO BALAJADIA PUNO, J.
Abandonment is the deliberate and unjustified refusal of an employee to resume his employment.[11] It is one form of neglect of duty, hence, a just cause for termination of employment by the employer.[12] Mere absence does not equate to abandonment. To constitute abandonment, there must be a concurrence of: (1) the failure to report for work or absence without valid or justifiable reason;[13] (2) a deliberate intent of the employee to leave his work permanently;[14] and (3) overt act/s from which it may be inferred that the employee had no more intention to resume his work.[15] This burden of proving that there was a deliberate and unjustified refusal on the part of the employee to resume his employment without any intention of returning rests on the employer.[16]