This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2014-09-22 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Petitioner failed to discharge this burden. Other than the self-serving declarations in the affidavit of his employee, petitioner did not adduce proof of overt acts of Villegas showing his intention to abandon his work. Abandonment is a matter of intention; it cannot be inferred or presumed from equivocal acts. On the contrary, the filing of the instant illegal dismissal complaint negates any intention on his part to sever their employment relationship. The delay of more than 1 year in filing the instant illegal dismissal case likewise is non-issue considering that the complaint was filed within a reasonable period during the three-year period provided under Article 291 of the Labor Code.[21] As aptly observed by the appellate court, Villegas appeared to be without educational attainment. He could not have known that he has rights as a regular employee that is protected by law. | |||||
|
2011-02-16 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| 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.[29] 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.[30] | |||||
|
2009-10-02 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| In the present case, petitioner Pascual consistently denies that Aguilar was terminated from his employment and that, instead, he abandoned his work and never returned after his request for salary increase was rejected. However, denial, in this case, does not suffice; it should be coupled with evidence to support it.[20] In the instant case, the Court finds no error in the ruling of the CA that petitioners failed to adduce evidence to prove abandonment and rebut Aguilar's claim of dismissal. | |||||