This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2014-11-12 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| The Court finds that despite the CA's non-explicit reference to the 13th month pay, following the doctrine in Gonzales, its inclusion in the computation is proper. Entitlement to it is a right granted by P.D. No. 851. Besides, the computation of award for backwages and other benefits is a mere legal consequence of the finding that there was illegal dismissal.[34] | |||||
|
2013-07-08 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| As defined under established jurisprudence, abandonment is the deliberate and unjustified refusal of an employee to resume his employment.[22] It constitutes neglect of duty and is a just cause for termination of employment under paragraph (b) of Article 282 of the Labor Code.[23] To constitute abandonment, however, there must be a clear and deliberate intent to discontinue one's employment without any intention of returning. In this regard, two elements must concur: (1) 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.[24] Otherwise stated, absence must be accompanied by overt acts unerringly pointing to the fact that the employee simply does not want to work anymore.[25] It has been ruled that 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.[26] | |||||
|
2011-11-21 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| The settled rule in labor cases is that the employer has the burden of proving that the employee was not dismissed, or, if dismissed, that the dismissal was not illegal, and failure to discharge the same would mean that the dismissal is not justified and, therefore, illegal.[13] In the instant case, what betrays petitioners' claim that private respondent was not dismissed from his employment but instead abandoned his job is their failure to prove that the latter indeed stopped reporting for work without any justifiable cause or a valid leave of absence. Petitioners merely presented the affidavits of their office secretary which narrated their version of the facts. These affidavits, however, are not only insufficient to prove their defense but also undeserving of credence because they are self-serving.[14] | |||||
|
2011-11-16 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Being a matter of intention, moreover, abandonment cannot be inferred or presumed from equivocal acts.[26] As a just and valid ground for dismissal, it requires the deliberate, unjustified refusal of the employee to resume his employment,[27] without any intention of returning.[28] Two elements must concur: (1) 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.[29] The burden of proving abandonment is once again upon the employer[30] who, whether pleading the same as a ground for dismissing an employee or as a mere defense, additionally has the legal duty to observe due process.[31] Settled is the rule that mere absence or failure to report to work is not tantamount to abandonment of work.[32] | |||||
|
2011-03-02 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Jurisprudence provides for two essential requirements for abandonment of work to exist. The "failure to report for work or absence without valid or justifiable reason" and "clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship x x x manifested by some overt acts" should both concur.[31] Further, the employee's deliberate and unjustified refusal to resume his employment without any intention of returning should be established and proven by the employer.[32] | |||||