This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2012-01-25 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Although much had been made about Morales' supposed refusal to heed his employer's repeated directives for him to return to work, our perusal of the record also shows that HCPTI's theory of abandonment of employment cannot bear close scrutiny. While ostensibly dated 6 May 2003, the Inter-Office Memorandum labeled as a Second Warning was sent to Morales thru the JRS Express only on 9 May 2003[57] or two (2) days after summons were served on HCPTI, Filart and Singson on 7 May 2003.[58] Sent to Morales on 26 May 2003 or after the parties' initial conference before the Labor Arbiter on 19 May 2003,[59] there was obviously even less reason for HCPTI's 22 May 2003 letter denominated as Notice to Report for Work and Final Warning. As a just and valid ground for dismissal, at any rate, abandonment requires the deliberate, unjustified refusal of the employee to resume his employment,[60] without any intention of returning.[61] Since an employee like Morales who takes steps to protest his dismissal cannot logically be said to have abandoned his work, it is a settled doctrine that the filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal is inconsistent with abandonment of employment.[62] | |||||
|
2009-12-21 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| way of attorney's fees is justifiable under Article 111 of the Labor Code;[29] Section 8, Rule VIII, Book III of its Implementing Rules;[30] and paragraph 7, Article 2208 of the Civil Code.[31] The award of attorney's fees is proper, and there need not be any showing that the employer acted maliciously or in bad faith when it withheld the wages.[32] There need only be a showing that the lawful wages were not paid accordingly.[33] WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTLY GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated August 21, 2003 is MODIFIED by deleting the award for backwages. In lieu thereof, petitioners are ORDERED to pay respondent nominal damages in the | |||||