THIRD DIVISION G.R. No.
179001 August 28, 2013
MZR INDUSTRIES, MARILOU R. QUIROZ AND LEA TIMBAL, PETITIONERS, vs. MA EN !OLAMBOT, RESPONDENT. DECISION "ERALTA, J.: This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 4 of the Rules of Court see!in" the reversal of the De#ision$ dated %a& $', ())' and Resolution( dated *ul& ( , ())' of the Court of +,,eals in C+-..R. SP No. /044 , reversin" the De#ision dated O#to1er 2$, ())3 2 and Resolution4 dated De#e41er ($, ())3 of the National 5a1or Relations Co44ission 6N5RC7 whi#h set aside the De#ision dated +,ril (0, ())3 of the 5a1or +r1iter. The fa#ts are as follows8 On 9e1ruar& 0, ())), ,etitioner %arilou :uiro;, Owner and Vi#e-President for 9inan#e and %ar!etin" of %<R, hired res,ondent %a=en Cola41ot 6Cola41ot7 as 4essen"er. Cola41ot>s duties and res,onsi1ilities in#luded field, 4essen"erial and other liaison wor!. However, 1e"innin" ())(, Cola41ot>s wor! ,erfor4an#e started to deteriorate. Petitioners issued several 4e4oranda to Cola41ot for ha1itual tardiness, ne"li"en#e, and violations of offi#e ,oli#ies. 3 He was also "iven written warnin"s for insu1ordination #o44itted on +u"ust (', ())2 and Se,te41er $$-$(, ())2?' on Se,te41er $3, ())2 for ne"li"en#e #aused 1& #areless handlin" of #onfidential offi#e do#u4ents?0 on Se,te41er ((, ())4 for leavin" his ,ost without ,ro,er turnover? / and, on O#to1er 4, ())4 for insu1ordination.$) Petitioners #lai4ed that des,ite written warnin"s for re,eated tardiness and insu1ordination, Cola41ot failed to 4end his wa&s. Hen#e, in a %e4orandu4$$ dated O#to1er ( , ())4 issued 1& ,etitioner 5ea Ti41al 6Ti41al7, %<R>s +d4inistrative %ana"er, Cola41ot was "iven a noti#e of sus,ension for insu1ordination and ne"li"en#e. +"ain, in a %e4orandu4$( dated Nove41er ( , ())4, Cola41ot was sus,ended fro4 Nove41er (3, ())4 until De#e41er 3, ())4 for insu1ordination. +lle"edl&, Cola41ot diso1e&ed and left the offi#e des,ite #lear instru#tions to sta& in the offi#e 1e#ause there was an i4,ortant 4eetin" in ,re,aration for a ver& i4,ortant a#tivit& the followin" da&. Petitioners #lai4ed the& waited for Cola41ot to re,ort 1a#! for wor! on De#e41er ', ())4, 1ut the& never heard fro4 hi4 an&4ore. 5ater, ,etitioners were sur,rised to find out that Cola41ot had filed a #o4,laint for ille"al sus,ension, under,a&4ent of salaries, overti4e ,a&, holida& ,a&, rest da&, servi#e in#entive leave and $2th 4onth ,a&. On De#e41er $3, ())4, the #o4,laint was a4ended to ille"al dis4issal, ille"al sus,ension, under,a&4ent of salaries, holida& ,a&, servi#e in#entive ,a&, $2th 4onth ,a& and se,aration ,a&.$2 9or his ,art, Cola41ot narrated that he wor!ed as a 4essen"er for ,etitioners sin#e 9e1ruar& ())). That on Nove41er ())4, he was dire#ted to ta!e #are of the ,ro#essin" of a do#u4ent in Ro@as Aoulevard, Pasa& Cit&. Bhen he arrived at the offi#e around 3 to ' o>#lo#! in the evenin", he loo!ed for ,etitioner :uiro; to "ive the do#u4ents. The latter told hi4 to wait for her for a while. Bhen res,ondent finall& had the #han#e to tal! to :uiro;, she alle"edl& told hi4 that she is dissatisfied alread& with his wor!
$3 The 5a1or +r1iter held that there was no a1andon4ent as there was no deli1erate intent on the .ondents is .etition for #ertiorari under Rule 3 of the Rules of Court.. ())4 without an& a. Cola41ot alle"ed that :uiro. $ the dis. 4ade hi4 si"n a 4e4orandu4 for his sus.ositive . ())3 and Resolution dated De#e41er ($.))). thus..laint was unsu.orted 1& an& eviden#e and was not even 4ade under oath. ())3 of the N5RC 1e reversed and set aside. ())4.. res. On +.utation of the =ud"4ent award 4ar!ed as +nne@ D+D is . ())4.an& to loo! for Ti41al to "et his salar&. 4eanwhile. ())3.+5 DIS%ISS+5 and here1& ORDERED to reinstate #o4.ointed out that Cola41ot>s #o4. la#!in" in #redi1ilit& and .etitioner failed to do. insisted that while Cola41ot was sus.lo&4ent with %<R has not 1een ter4inated. res.ort 1a#! to wor! after the e@.lar& da4a"es in the su4 of P$)). ())4. +fter affi@in" his si"nature..ortion of whi#h reads as follows8 BHERE9ORE. 5ater.ar#el of this de#ision. raisin" "rave a1use of dis#retion as a "round. told hi4 that his e4.lo&4ent was alread& ter4inated effe#tive De#e41er '.etitionersC #lai4 that he a1andoned his =o1.lo&er-e4. The =ud"4ent of the 5a1or +r1iter dated +.re4ises #onsidered. ())3 is here1& SET +SIDE and the Co4. SO ORDERED. .etitioners a. Cola41ot #lai4ed that he was 4ade to #hoose 1etween resi"nin" fro4 the #o4. The failure of %<R to notif& Cola41ot to return 1a#! to wor! is not tanta4ount to a#tual dis4issal.ro1ative value.erfor4an#e. The #o4.))).ension on De#e41er 3.osition with full 1a#!wa"es fro4 date of dis4issal until a#tual reinstate4ent and 4oral and e@e4. 1e#ause :uiro.eal filed 1& res. He said he refused to resi"n. Cola41ot a.ositive . Thus. 1ut the& never ter4inated his e4.)). whi#h .$' the dis. via a . He #lai4ed that Ti41al as!ed hi4 to turn over his #o4.ondents are here1& de#lared "uilt& of I55E. the& 4aintained that the& never ter4inated Cola41ot>s e4. +""rieved.laint a"ainst the4. he is alread& dee4ed ter4inated.iration of his sus.. the N5RC rendered a De#ision. ())3.lo&4ent.. +fterwards.e#tivel&.ealed 1efore the Court of +. :uiro.an& I.lo&4ent.lo&ee relationshi.art of Cola41ot to sever the e4..$0 The N5RC . Cola41ot filed a 4otion for re#onsideration.ortion of whi#h reads8 BHERE9ORE. fro4 Nove41er (3 to De#e41er 3.laint is DIS%ISSED for la#! of 4erit.ort for wor! after his sus. ())4. the 5a1or +r1iter rendered a De#ision. .ril (0. $4 Petitioners.roved va#ation or si#! leave #onstituted a1andon4ent of his wor!. SO ORDERED.
.D.ended due to insu1ordination and ne"li"en#e. he #lai4ed that he did not re.)) and P ).ril (0. The N5RC further 1elieved that Cola41ot a1andoned his wor! due to his refusal to re. however.re4ises #onsidered.ondent went 1a#! to the #o4. Cola41ot. ar"ued that #ontrar& to .ension. his e4. The 5a1or +r1iter li!ewise noted that Cola41ot should have 1een notified to return 1a#! to wor!.hasi.ealed the de#ision 1efore the N5RC. Petitioners further e4. .R+NTED. the a. On O#to1er 2$. ())4.art and .lainant to his for4er .an& or the #o4.ension. res. on De#e41er (. The& added that Cola41ot>s failure to re.an& will 1e the one to ter4inate his servi#es.eals and sou"ht that the De#ision dated O#to1er 2$. told hi4 that effe#tive De#e41er '..ed that even with Cola41ot>s filin" of the #o4.ort for wor! sin#e De#e41er '. 1ut was denied.
he failed to . ())'. no eviden#e that Cola41ot was ter4inated fro4 wor!.())'.ondent. TH+T CO%P5+IN+NT B+S I55E. The a. in the . however. there was.resent #ase. via Rule 4 of the Rules of Court.eals "ranted the .ER
.lo&er 1ears the 1urden of . The De#ision dated +. RF5IN.etition and reversed the assailed De#ision dated O#to1er 2$.ension(2 dated Nove41er ( ..ended fro4 wor! for 3 da&s.lo&er-e4. with Cola41ot. we Euote8
TO 8 %+*EN CO5+%AOT %<R %ESSEN. . TH+T PETITIONER IS ENTIT5ED TO SEP+R+TION P+G +ND A+CHB+. 1ut was denied in a Resolution () dated *ul& ( .ort 1a#! to wor! without an a.ositive a#t .
Petitioners ar"ue that the& did not ter4inate the e4. Petitioners a.lo&4ent.resented to show that he was indeed dis4issed fro4 wor! or was . the fa#ts and the eviden#e do not esta1lish a . Other than Cola41ot>s self-servin" and unverified narration of fa#ts. #on=e#tural and of no .rove a1andon4ent on the . Thus.ondent was 4erel& sus.rovin" that the ter4ination was for a valid or authori.etitioners had dis4issed res. ())3 and Resolution dated De#e41er ($.ellate #ourt ruled that Cola41ot was ille"all& dis4issed 1ased on the "rounds that8 6$7 %<R failed to .lo&ee was dis4issed fro4 e4.rovin" that the dis4issal was le"al.roved va#ation or si#! leave.ondent se.ri4a fa#ie #ase that the e4..aration . Aefore the e4. Petitioners assert that Cola41ot a1andoned his wor! when he failed to re.lo&ee 4ust first esta1lish 1& su1stantial eviden#e the fa#t of his dis4issal fro4 servi#e.ril (0. .ro1ative value. ())4 shows that res.a& and 1a#!wa"es. and 6(7 %<R failed to serve Cola41ot with the reEuired written noti#es of dis4issal. ())3 of the N5RC.revented fro4 returnin" to his wor!. 1efore this Court. the Court of +.etitioners were ordered to . other than Cola41ot>s unsu1stantiated alle"ation of havin" 1een ver1all& ter4inated fro4 his wor!. the e4.ES.ed #ause. then there #an 1e no Euestion as to the le"alit& or ille"alit& thereof. If there is no dis4issal.lo&ee relationshi. + review of the Noti#e of Sus.a& eEuivalent to one 6$7 4onth .art of Cola41ot.resent #ase.+55G DIS%ISSED 9RO% THE SERVICE. the e4.a& res.lo&er 4ust 1ear the 1urden of . 9or #larifi#ation.rovin" that .a& for ever& &ear of servi#e in addition to full 1a#!wa"es.ealed. thus.aration . II THE HONOR+A5E COFRT SERIOFS5G ERRED IN RF5IN.uted De#ision$/ dated %a& $'.e the rule that in ille"al dis4issal #ases.In the dis. ())3 of the 5a1or +r1iter was ordered reinstated with 4odifi#ation that in lieu of reinstate4ent. Bhile we re#o"ni. there was no eviden#e . ())'. he is not entitled to an award of se..resent an& do#u4ent showin" that he was ter4inated fro4 wor!.etitioners raised the followin" issues8
I THE HONOR+A5E COFRT O9 +PPE+5S ERRED IN RF5IN. however. ($ In the .. the latter>s #lai4 of ille"al dis4issal #annot 1e sustained (( I as the sa4e would 1e self-servin". In the a1sen#e of an& showin" of an overt or .
The rule that the e4. it is li!ewise a.roof in ille"al dis4issal #ases finds no a. ())4. Thus.lo&er 1ears the 1urden of .roffered 1& the e4. &ou will onl& re. in +1ad v. THIS IS OFR 5+ST B+RNIN.an& #annot tolerate. ())4. ( . Be !e.e. (' %oreover.rete@t that the e4.. Roosevelt Servi#es Center.ension whi#h he si"ned.ersuaded 1& the latter.D the wordin"s and #ontent of the letter is a #lear-#ut noti#e of sus. .ort 1a#! to wor!. Gour attitude onl& shows H+RD HE+DEDNESS +ND 5+CH O9 RESPECT TO GOFR SFPERIORS whi#h in an& #o4. and not a noti#e of ter4ination. u.lo&ee would not
.ondents.eared to #ontain a warnin" of ter4ination should Cola41ot fail to i4.etitioners. ())4 RE 8 SFSPENSION DFE TO INSFAORDIN+TION @@@@ Cases of insu1ordination and violations have 1een filed a"ainst &ou 4an& ti4es..9RO% 8 HF%+N RESOFRCE DEPT D+TE 8 NOV. 9+I5FRE TO DO SO %+G %E+N TER%IN+TION O9 GOFR E%P5OG%ENT CONTR+CT.l&in" a#tual or #onstru#tive dis4issal.etitioners were 1urdened to .rovin" it? thus. In#. +1sent an& showin" of an overt or . i.ension 4a& have #ontained warnin"s of ter4ination. &ou are sus.lo&4ent. Roselle Cine4a.ension.rove his 1ehavior..ended for 3 wor!in" da&s effe#tive Nove41er (3.( this Court sustained the e4. on De#e41er '.ension due to Insu1ordination.(3 Hen#e.ositive a#t . In %a#hi#a v.ort on De#e41er '.etitioners whi#h were found to 1e su1stantiated 1& the sworn state4ent of fore4an Benifredo.arent that there was also a s. There were no wordin"s whatsoever i4. . we are . the latterCs #lai4 of ille"al dis4issal #annot 1e sustained. we are then in#lined to 1elieve that there was no dis4issal.lo&ee should not 1e i"nored on the . this Court held that8 The rule is that one who alle"es a fa#t has the 1urden of .erfor4an#e 1ut the #o4.rovin" that . as 1etween res.li#ation here 1e#ause the res. 1ut it 4ust 1e noted that su#h was #onditioned on the "round that I Cola41ot would fail to i4. The su1=e#t of the 5etter.ositive and #onvin#in".ondents den& havin" dis4issed the . The noti#e of sus.on servin" his sus. In so rulin"..lo&er that it had not ter4inated the e4.. Bith these.ension.an&>s .(0 we ruled that the su1stantial eviden#e .ondents dis4issed the4 fro4 their e4.rove their alle"ation that res.ea! of.ondentsC "eneral alle"ation of havin" 1een orall& dis4issed fro4 the servi#e visa-vis those of .e#ifi# instru#tion for hi4 to re.roved &our wor!in" attitudes 1e#ause it "reatl& affe#ts not onl& &our wor!in" .lo&ees> #ate"ori#al assertion of ille"al dis4issal. ())4. Cola41ot>s "eneral alle"ation of havin" 1een orall& dis4issed fro4 the servi#e as a"ainst the #lear wordin"s and intent of the noti#e of sus. 9OR GOF TO I%PROVE.rodu#tivit& as well. @ @ @ @(4
Bhile the sa4e a. DSus.etitioners had dis4issed res.rove this fa#t 4ust 1e #lear. Indeed.t on re4indin" that &ou should have #han"ed and i4. a #ursor& e@a4ination of the re#ords reveal no ille"al dis4issal to s. It 4ust 1e stressed that the eviden#e to .lo&er>s denial as a"ainst the e4.rove his attitudeJ1ehavior.
the De#ision dated %a& $ '. There 4ust 1e a #on#urren#e of the intention to a1andon and so4e overt a#ts fro4 whi#h an e4..la#in" the4 on eEual footin".ondent to a1andon his wor!.lo&4ent. while the Court #on#urs with the #on#lusion of the N5RC that there was no ille"al dis4issal. 2( Suffi#e it to sa& that.s to . it is the e4..ort for wor!. no dis4issal havin" a#tuall& ta!en .etitioners to order res. the Court does not a"ree with its findin"s that Cola41ot #o44itted a1andon4ent of wor!.uttin" an end to his e4. two ele4ents 4ust 1e . the 1urden of e#ono4i# loss is not ri"htfull& shifted to the e4. +n e4.lo&ee>s failure to wor! was o##asioned neither 1& his a1andon4ent nor 1& a ter4ination.lo&4ent. In the instant #ase.lo&4ent.la#e.lo&ee to resu4e his e4.lo&4ent. The 1urden of .ort 1a#! to wor! on De#e41er '.lo&ee who ta!es ste.have filed the #o4.art of the res. ta!en to"ether. .lo&ee 4a& 1e dedu#ed as havin" no 4ore intention to wor!. +1andon4ent is a 4atter of intention and #annot li"htl& 1e .roof to show that there was un=ustified refusal to "o 1a#! to wor! rests on the e4.laint for ille"al dis4issal if he had not reall& 1een dis4issed. 22 However. the C+ was #orre#t when it held that8 %ere a1sen#e or failure to re.etitioners 1e 1la4ed for failin" to order res.resu4ed fro4 #ertain eEuivo#al a#ts. thus. ))-$$-$($0/-)4J C+ No. the e4.on .lo&er who has the 1urden of .etitioners failed to . The Resolution dated O#to1er 2$.lo&ee to sever the e4.la#e of the eviden#e of 1oth the e4.ort 1a#! to wor! after sus. . the la#! of eviden#e of dis4issal and the la#! of intent on the . ea#h .art& 4ust 1ear his or her own loss. is not tanta4ount to a1andon4ent. would 1e unsound.lo&4ent without an& intention of returnin".art& 4ust 1ear his own loss.
However. )4/ 22-)3 is here1& REINST+TED.laint for ille"al dis4issal is in#onsistent with a1andon4ent of e4. 9or . (/ or =ust a few da&s when he was su. These #ir#u4stan#es.. This.. Clearl&. other than Cola41ot>s failure to re.rotest his dis4issal #annot lo"i#all& 1e said to have a1andoned his wor!.oint.roof of deli1erate and un=ustified intent to sever the e4.lo&ee. after the latter had alread& filed a #ase for ille"al dis4issal. ())' of the Court of +. ())4.eals is here1& REVERSED and SET +SIDE. the filin" of su#h #o4. Re#ords show that Cola41ot i44ediatel& filed the #o4.lo&ee 4ust have failed to re.lo&eeCs ulti4ate a#t of . thus ne"atin" an& su""estion of a1andon4ent.lo&er-e4. in a #ase where the e4.roof enou"h of his desire to return to wor!.laint is . ())3 of the National 5a1or Relations Co44ission in N5RC NCR C+SE No. there 4ust have 1een a #lear intention on the .osed to re.li#a1le due to the strained relationshi. 4anifested 1& so4e overt a#t.erative a#t is still the e4.lo&er.ondent to return 1a#! to wor!. 1etween the .etitioners failed to do so.ort 1a#! to wor!.2) this Court #onsistentl& held that to #onstitute a1andon4ent of wor!. the re4ed& is reinstate4ent 1ut without 1a#!wa"es. 9urther4ore. even after noti#e to return. It is therefore in#u41ent u. Veril&.arties and that Cola41ot alread& found another e4. the o.ondentsC interest or non-interest in the #ontinuan#e of their e4.ort for wor! is not enou"h to a4ount to a1andon4ent of wor!.2$ On this .art of the e4.lo&ee relationshi. Be held that su#h non seEuitur reasonin" #annot ta!e the .ondent to re. it is a settled do#trine that the filin" of a #o4. It is a settled rule that 4ere a1sen#e or failure to re. there 4ust 1e #lear . Neither #ould the . . ())4.
.roof to show a deli1erate and un=ustified refusal of the e4.etitioners to as#ertain the res.laint for ille"al dis4issal on De#e41er $3.resent8 first. To #onstitute a1andon4ent. .re4ises #onsidered and su1=e#t to the a1ove disEuisitions.ort for wor! or 4ust have 1een a1sent without valid or =ustifia1le reason? and se#ond.lo&er? ea#h .lo&er-e4.lo&ee relationshi. #onsiderin" that reinstate4ent is no lon"er a.ension.24 BHERE9ORE. In a nu41er of #ases.resent an& eviden#e whi#h tend to show his intent to a1andon his wor!.lo&er and the e4.
#ELAS!O.inion of the Court>s Division.erson>s +ttestation. "RESBITERO . +sso#iate *usti#e Chair. I #ertif& that the #on#lusions in the a1ove De#ision had 1een rea#hed in #onsultation 1efore the #ase was assi"ned to the writer of the o. MARIA LOURDES ". DIOSDADO M. #ELAS!O. Third Division CERTI9IC+TION Pursuant to Se#tion $2.SO ORDERED. R. +sso#iate *usti#e Chair. SERENO Chief *usti#e
. "ERALTA +sso#iate *usti#e BE CONCFR8 "RESBITERO .erson
ROBERTO A. ABAD +sso#iate *usti#e
OSE !ATRAL MENDOZA +sso#iate *usti#e
MAR#I! MARIO #I!TOR $. A. +rti#le VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chair. LEONEN +sso#iate *usti#e +TTEST+TION I attest that the #on#lusions in the a1ove De#ision had 1 n rea#hed in #onsultation 1efore the #ase was assi"ned to the writer of the o.inion of the CourtCs Division. R.erson.