You are on page 1of 1

Agabon vs NLRC

Facts:
 Respondent is engaged in the business of selling and installing ornamental and construction materials.
 It employs petitioners as gypsum board and cornice installers on Jan. 2, 1992 to Feb. 23, 1999 when they
were dismissed for abandonment of work.
 Petitioners then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.
 LA rendered decision in favor of the petitioners.
 NLRC reversed the LA
 NLRC found that it was petitioner who abandoned their work and were not entitled to any pay.
 CA affirmed the dismissal of the petitioner was not illegal because they had abandoned their
employment but ordered the payment of money claimed.
Issue:
 Whether petitioners were illegally dismissed.
Held:
 The court held it negatively.
 Abandonment is the deliberate and unjustified refusal of an employee to resume his employment.
 It is a form of neglect of duty, hence, a just cause for termination of employment by the ER provided:
1. The failure to report for work or absence without valid or justifiable reason; and
2. A clear intention to sever ER-EE relationship, with the second as the more determinative factor
which is manifested by overt acts from which it may be deduced that the EEs has no more
intention to work.
 The intent to discontinue the employment must be shown by clear proof that it was deliberate and
unjustified.
 Petitioners were frequently absent having subcontracted for an installation work for another company.
 Subcontracting for another company clearly showed the intention to sever the ER-EE relationship.
 The court have held that an EE who deliberately absented from work, without leave or permission from
his ER, for the purpose of looking for a job elsewhere, is considered to have abandoned his job which
should apply that rule with more reason here where petitioners were absent because they were already
working in another company.
 Procedurally, if the dismissal is based on Art. 282, the ER must give the EE 2 written notices and a hearing
or opportunity to be heard.
 If the dismissal is based on Art. 283 and 284, the ER must give the EE and the DOLE written notices 30
days prior to the effectivity of his separation.
 There are four possible scenarios may be derived:
Just Cause or Due Process
Effect
Authorized Cause Observed
1st scenario   ER will not suffer any liability
Under Art. 279, EE is entitled to reinstatement w/o
2nd scenario X  loss of seniority rights and other privileges, back
wages from the time compensation wasn’t paid
Under Art. 279, EE is entitled to reinstatement w/o
rd
3 scenario X X loss of seniority rights and other privileges, back
wages from the time compensation wasn’t paid
Dismissal should be upheld but because of
th
4 scenario  X procedural infirmity, ER is held liable for non-
compliance w/ the procedural requirements
 Respondent here didn’t follow the law mandated twin notice requirements to the EEs last known address.