This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2007-01-25 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| For unexplained absence to constitute abandonment, there must be a clear, deliberate and unjustified refusal on the part of the employee to continue his employment, without any intention of returning.[21] For a valid finding of abandonment, these two factors should be present: (1) the failure to report for work or absence without valid or justifiable reason; and (2) a clear intention to sever employer-employee relationship, which is the more determinative factor and is manifested by overt acts from which it may be deduced that the employee has no more intention to work. Such intent must be shown by clear proof that it was deliberate and unjustified.[22] | |||||
|
2003-08-07 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| In Cruz vs. NLRC,[7] we held:"The law requires that an employee sought to be dismissed must be served two written notices before termination of his employment. The first notice is to apprise the employee of the particular acts or omissions by reason of which his dismissal has been decided upon; and the second notice is to inform the employee of the employer's decision to dismiss him. Failure to comply with the requirement of two notices makes the dismissal illegal. The procedure is mandatory. Non-observance thereof renders the dismissal of an employee illegal and void." The mandatory first notice is undeniably absent in the case at bar. Prior to respondent's termination from the service, he was neither apprised of the particular acts for which his dismissal is sought, nor was he directed to explain why he should not be dismissed for taking out from the vessel company property. | |||||