Lawyerly

GR No. 177812

2013-06-19

PERALTA, J.

Finally, petitioners cannot raise for the first time their claim that it was only petitioner PSC which was respondent's employer and that petitioners PSC and CSI are two different corporate entities. Notably, this issue had not been submitted for determination before the LA, NLRC or the CA but only now in this petition. The settled rule is that issues not raised or ventilated in the court a quo cannot be raised for the first time on appeal as to do so would be offensive to the basic rules of fair play and justice.[44]

GR No. 165968

2008-04-14

PEPSI COLA PRODUCTS PHILIPPINES v. EMMANUEL V. SANTOS

QUISUMBING, J.

In any event, we have carefully reviewed the records of this case and found no compelling reason to disturb the uniform findings and conclusions of the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC, and the Court of Appeals. In an illegal dismissal case, the onus probandi rests on the employer to prove that its dismissal of an employee is for a valid cause.[16] In the instant case, petitioners failed to present evidence to justify respondent's dismissal. Save for the notice of termination, we could not find any evidence which would clearly and convincingly show that respondent was guilty of the charges imputed against him. There appears to be no compelling reason why petitioners would rather present their witnesses on direct testimony rather than reduce their testimonies into affidavits. The submission of these affidavits appears to be the more prudent course of action particularly when the Labor Arbiter informed the parties that no further trial will be conducted in the case.

GR NO. 155731

2007-09-03

LOLITA LOPEZ v. BODEGA CITY

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

In an illegal dismissal case, the onus probandi rests on the employer to prove that its dismissal of an employee was for a valid cause.[13] However, before a case for illegal dismissal can prosper, an employer-employee relationship must first be established.[14]

GR NO. 160174

2006-08-28

FRANCISCO SILVA AS NEA ADMINISTRATOR v. LEOVIGILDO T. MATIONG

CARPIO, J.

On the issues of collateral attack of various NEA-BOA issuances and exclusion of indispensable parties, the Court notes that petitioner raised them for the first time on appeal. Settled is the rule that issues not raised in the court a quo cannot be raised for the first time on appeal because to do so would be offensive to the basic rules of justice and fair play.[39]

GR NO. 149074

2006-08-10

ASIAN TERMINALS v. DANILO MARBELLA

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

Settled is the rule that in an illegal dismissal case, the onus probandi is on the employer to prove that the dismissal of an employee is for a valid cause.[7] In this case, we agree with the Court of Appeals that Asian Terminals failed to prove willful disobedience on the part of respondents. Its own Position Paper states that they did not refuse to work. It was their head checker who told them to stop working, thus: That on or about 7:00 P.M. in the evening of April 30, 1994, the gangs assigned at Hatch No. 1 of M/V Huang Jin Shan, for which complainants Marbella, et. al belonged, started working with the aforesaid vessel for discharging operations. Later, on or about 9:30 P.M. of the same date, foreman Wilfredo Huerto Acay noticed that the personnel assigned to Hatch No. 1 is missing and/or lacking. It was established and identified that the absent personnel is Mr. Reynaldo Adan with ID No. 02/NA-023-4. It was at this juncture that Mr. Wilfredo Acay called the attention of JOC and requested replacement. As there were no available personnel to replace the lacking person, the head checker decided to stop the operation and knock-off the gang at around 9:30 P.M. (Emphasis supplied).

GR NO. 150454

2006-07-14

GSP MANUFACTURING CORPORATION v. PAULINA CABANBAN

CORONA, J.

We would like to reiterate some salient points laid down in our prior pronouncements concerning abandonment of employment. Abandonment as a just ground for dismissal requires the deliberate, unjustified refusal of the employee to perform his employment responsibilities. Mere absence or failure to work, even after notice to return, is not tantamount to abandonment.[5] The records are bereft of proof that petitioners even furnished respondent such notice.

GR NO. 146174

2006-07-12

DR. DANILO T. TING v. CA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

We have said that, in an illegal dismissal case, the onus probandi rests on the employer to prove that its dismissal of an employee is for a valid cause.[43] As noted earlier, petitioner-spouses issued Memorandum dated 16 June 1998 to private respondent, apprising him of the cause of his dismissal. The pertinent portions thereof are reproduced hereunder:We have received reports from a very reliable person that you have been abandoning your post on several occasions as "patron" of Lightboat Liza-II on fishing expeditions on high seas and boarding a "Carrier" to go on land.

GR NO. 166111

2005-08-25

STANDARD ELECTRIC MANUFACTURING CORPORATION v. VS.

CALLEJO, SR., J.

Respondent Javier's absence from August 9, 1995 cannot be deemed as an abandonment of his work. Abandonment is a matter of intention and cannot lightly be inferred or legally presumed from certain equivocal acts. To constitute as such, two requisites must concur: first, the employee must have failed to report for work or must have been absent without valid or justifiable reason; and second, there must have been a clear intention on the part of the employee to sever the employer-employee relationship as manifested by some overt acts, with the second element being the more determinative factor. Abandonment as a just ground for dismissal requires clear, willful, deliberate, and unjustified refusal of the employee to resume his employment. Mere absence or failure to report for work, even after notice to return, is not tantamount to abandonment.[25]

GR NO. 140555

2005-08-14

NEW EVER MARKETING v. & WILFREDO BILASA

AZCUNA, J.

This contention has no merit. The substantive aspect for a valid dismissal provides that to constitute abandonment of work, two (2) requisites must concur: (a) the employee must have failed to report for work or must have been absent without justifiable reason; and (b) there must have been a clear intention on the part of the employee to sever the employer-employee relationship as manifested by overt acts. Abandonment as a just ground for dismissal requires deliberate, unjustified refusal of the employee to resume his employment. Mere absence or failure to report for work, after notice to return, is not enough to amount to abandonment. Moreover, abandonment is a matter of intention; it cannot be inferred or presumed from equivocal acts.[6] In this case, respondents had sought permission and had informed petitioner of their reasons for being absent and had reported back to petitioner's office the following day. It cannot be said that respondents had abandoned their work during the period the absences in question were incurred. It became a strange scenario for them to be reporting for work early in the morning only to be told to wait for Ding who would arrive at noon time. In the meantime, they were not even allowed to enter the premises or do their assigned tasks. This being so, respondents sought recourse by filing an illegal dismissal case against petitioner. Clearly, respondents never intended to sever the employer-employee relation and abandon their work. On the contrary, they clearly showed their desire to continue their employment with petitioner and to be reinstated to their former positions. Indeed, an employee who loses no time in protesting his layoff cannot by any reasoning be said to have abandoned his work, for it is well-settled that the filing by an employee of a complaint for illegal dismissal with a prayer for reinstatement is proof enough of his desire to return to work, thus, negating the employer's charge of abandonment.[7]

GR No. 140555

2005-07-14

NEW EVER MARKETING v. CA

AZCUNA, J.

presumed from equivocal acts.[6] In this case, respondents had sought permission and had informed petitioner of their reasons for being absent and had reported back to petitioner's office the following day. It cannot be said that respondents had abandoned their work during the period the absences in question were incurred. It became a strange scenario for them to be reporting for work early in the morning only to be told to wait for Ding who would arrive at noon time. In the meantime, they were not even allowed to enter the premises or do their assigned tasks. This being so, respondents sought recourse by filing an illegal dismissal case against petitioner. Clearly, respondents never intended to sever the employer-employee relation and abandon their work. On the contrary, they clearly showed their desire to continue their employment with petitioner and to be reinstated to their former positions. Indeed, an employee who loses no time in protesting his layoff cannot by any reasoning be said to have abandoned his work, for it is well-settled that the filing by an employee of a complaint for illegal dismissal with a prayer for reinstatement is proof enough of his desire to return to work, thus, negating the employer's charge of abandonment.[7]

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. 159195

2005-05-09

MOBILE PROTECTIVE v. ALBERTO G. OMPAD

PUNO, J.

What is more, respondent should be deemed as constructively dismissed when he tendered his resignation letters on September 23, 1998. Constructive dismissal is "a quitting because continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely, as, an offer involving a demotion in rank and diminution in pay."[39]

	GR No. 177812 2013-06-19	CONCRETE SOLUTIONS v. ARTHUR CABUSAS PERALTA, J.
Finally, petitioners cannot raise for the first time their claim that it was only petitioner PSC which was respondent's employer and that petitioners PSC and CSI are two different corporate entities. Notably, this issue had not been submitted for determination before the LA, NLRC or the CA but only now in this petition. The settled rule is that issues not raised or ventilated in the court a quo cannot be raised for the first time on appeal as to do so would be offensive to the basic rules of fair play and justice.[44]
	GR No. 165968 2008-04-14	PEPSI COLA PRODUCTS PHILIPPINES v. EMMANUEL V. SANTOS QUISUMBING, J.
In any event, we have carefully reviewed the records of this case and found no compelling reason to disturb the uniform findings and conclusions of the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC, and the Court of Appeals. In an illegal dismissal case, the onus probandi rests on the employer to prove that its dismissal of an employee is for a valid cause.[16] In the instant case, petitioners failed to present evidence to justify respondent's dismissal. Save for the notice of termination, we could not find any evidence which would clearly and convincingly show that respondent was guilty of the charges imputed against him. There appears to be no compelling reason why petitioners would rather present their witnesses on direct testimony rather than reduce their testimonies into affidavits. The submission of these affidavits appears to be the more prudent course of action particularly when the Labor Arbiter informed the parties that no further trial will be conducted in the case.
	GR NO. 155731 2007-09-03	LOLITA LOPEZ v. BODEGA CITY AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In an illegal dismissal case, the onus probandi rests on the employer to prove that its dismissal of an employee was for a valid cause.[13] However, before a case for illegal dismissal can prosper, an employer-employee relationship must first be established.[14]
	GR NO. 160174 2006-08-28	FRANCISCO SILVA AS NEA ADMINISTRATOR v. LEOVIGILDO T. MATIONG CARPIO, J.
On the issues of collateral attack of various NEA-BOA issuances and exclusion of indispensable parties, the Court notes that petitioner raised them for the first time on appeal. Settled is the rule that issues not raised in the court a quo cannot be raised for the first time on appeal because to do so would be offensive to the basic rules of justice and fair play.[39]
	GR NO. 149074 2006-08-10	ASIAN TERMINALS v. DANILO MARBELLA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Settled is the rule that in an illegal dismissal case, the onus probandi is on the employer to prove that the dismissal of an employee is for a valid cause.[7] In this case, we agree with the Court of Appeals that Asian Terminals failed to prove willful disobedience on the part of respondents. Its own Position Paper states that they did not refuse to work. It was their head checker who told them to stop working, thus: That on or about 7:00 P.M. in the evening of April 30, 1994, the gangs assigned at Hatch No. 1 of M/V Huang Jin Shan, for which complainants Marbella, et. al belonged, started working with the aforesaid vessel for discharging operations. Later, on or about 9:30 P.M. of the same date, foreman Wilfredo Huerto Acay noticed that the personnel assigned to Hatch No. 1 is missing and/or lacking. It was established and identified that the absent personnel is Mr. Reynaldo Adan with ID No. 02/NA-023-4. It was at this juncture that Mr. Wilfredo Acay called the attention of JOC and requested replacement. As there were no available personnel to replace the lacking person, the head checker decided to stop the operation and knock-off the gang at around 9:30 P.M. (Emphasis supplied).
	GR NO. 150454 2006-07-14	GSP MANUFACTURING CORPORATION v. PAULINA CABANBAN CORONA, J.
We would like to reiterate some salient points laid down in our prior pronouncements concerning abandonment of employment. Abandonment as a just ground for dismissal requires the deliberate, unjustified refusal of the employee to perform his employment responsibilities. Mere absence or failure to work, even after notice to return, is not tantamount to abandonment.[5] The records are bereft of proof that petitioners even furnished respondent such notice.
	GR NO. 146174 2006-07-12	DR. DANILO T. TING v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
We have said that, in an illegal dismissal case, the onus probandi rests on the employer to prove that its dismissal of an employee is for a valid cause.[43] As noted earlier, petitioner-spouses issued Memorandum dated 16 June 1998 to private respondent, apprising him of the cause of his dismissal. The pertinent portions thereof are reproduced hereunder:We have received reports from a very reliable person that you have been abandoning your post on several occasions as "patron" of Lightboat Liza-II on fishing expeditions on high seas and boarding a "Carrier" to go on land.
	GR NO. 166111 2005-08-25	STANDARD ELECTRIC MANUFACTURING CORPORATION v. VS. CALLEJO, SR., J.
Respondent Javier's absence from August 9, 1995 cannot be deemed as an abandonment of his work. Abandonment is a matter of intention and cannot lightly be inferred or legally presumed from certain equivocal acts. To constitute as such, two requisites must concur: first, the employee must have failed to report for work or must have been absent without valid or justifiable reason; and second, there must have been a clear intention on the part of the employee to sever the employer-employee relationship as manifested by some overt acts, with the second element being the more determinative factor. Abandonment as a just ground for dismissal requires clear, willful, deliberate, and unjustified refusal of the employee to resume his employment. Mere absence or failure to report for work, even after notice to return, is not tantamount to abandonment.[25]
	GR NO. 140555 2005-08-14	NEW EVER MARKETING v. & WILFREDO BILASA AZCUNA, J.
This contention has no merit. The substantive aspect for a valid dismissal provides that to constitute abandonment of work, two (2) requisites must concur: (a) the employee must have failed to report for work or must have been absent without justifiable reason; and (b) there must have been a clear intention on the part of the employee to sever the employer-employee relationship as manifested by overt acts. Abandonment as a just ground for dismissal requires deliberate, unjustified refusal of the employee to resume his employment. Mere absence or failure to report for work, after notice to return, is not enough to amount to abandonment. Moreover, abandonment is a matter of intention; it cannot be inferred or presumed from equivocal acts.[6] In this case, respondents had sought permission and had informed petitioner of their reasons for being absent and had reported back to petitioner's office the following day. It cannot be said that respondents had abandoned their work during the period the absences in question were incurred. It became a strange scenario for them to be reporting for work early in the morning only to be told to wait for Ding who would arrive at noon time. In the meantime, they were not even allowed to enter the premises or do their assigned tasks. This being so, respondents sought recourse by filing an illegal dismissal case against petitioner. Clearly, respondents never intended to sever the employer-employee relation and abandon their work. On the contrary, they clearly showed their desire to continue their employment with petitioner and to be reinstated to their former positions. Indeed, an employee who loses no time in protesting his layoff cannot by any reasoning be said to have abandoned his work, for it is well-settled that the filing by an employee of a complaint for illegal dismissal with a prayer for reinstatement is proof enough of his desire to return to work, thus, negating the employer's charge of abandonment.[7]
	GR No. 140555 2005-07-14	NEW EVER MARKETING v. CA AZCUNA, J.
presumed from equivocal acts.[6] In this case, respondents had sought permission and had informed petitioner of their reasons for being absent and had reported back to petitioner's office the following day. It cannot be said that respondents had abandoned their work during the period the absences in question were incurred. It became a strange scenario for them to be reporting for work early in the morning only to be told to wait for Ding who would arrive at noon time. In the meantime, they were not even allowed to enter the premises or do their assigned tasks. This being so, respondents sought recourse by filing an illegal dismissal case against petitioner. Clearly, respondents never intended to sever the employer-employee relation and abandon their work. On the contrary, they clearly showed their desire to continue their employment with petitioner and to be reinstated to their former positions. Indeed, an employee who loses no time in protesting his layoff cannot by any reasoning be said to have abandoned his work, for it is well-settled that the filing by an employee of a complaint for illegal dismissal with a prayer for reinstatement is proof enough of his desire to return to work, thus, negating the employer's charge of abandonment.[7]
	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. 159195 2005-05-09	MOBILE PROTECTIVE v. ALBERTO G. OMPAD PUNO, J.
What is more, respondent should be deemed as constructively dismissed when he tendered his resignation letters on September 23, 1998. Constructive dismissal is "a quitting because continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely, as, an offer involving a demotion in rank and diminution in pay."[39]

R.P. DINGLASAN CONSTRUCTION v. MARIANO ATIENZA