CRC Agricultural Trading and Rolando Catinding (owner), petitioners

Versus
NLRC and Roberto Obias, respondents
G.R. No. 177664, December 23, 2009

FACTS:

Roberto Obias, respondent was hired as driver in 1985 to 1989. He was removed from his job due
to accident. In 1995, he was relieved in his job. He was also offered to stay inside the company’s premises
and extended a loan amounting to P3,000.00 to help him build a hut for his family.
However, the petitioner and the owner of the CRC Agricultural Trading, Rolando Catinding,
suspected Roberto that the receipts in the alternator repair work were falsified. Thus, petitioner stop talking
to him and stop giving him work assignments. Subsequently, his services are no longer asked by CRC
Agricultural Trading.
The family of Roberto moved out from the premises. Roberto then invoked that he has a daily wage
of P175 but did not receive SIL, holiday pay, rest day pay and overtime pay. Petitioners also failed to give
him notice of termination.
Meanwhile, the petitioners claimed that the respondent was a seasonal driver. And the P175 per day
is paid in the basis of no work, no pay. Moreover, he did not engage Roberto’s services after the alternator
repair because respondent had been working as a driver for different jeepney operators.
From this, Roberto filed a complaint before the Labor Arbiter (LA). The LA ruled that there was an
illegal dismissal and ordered the CRC to pay such compensations and 10% attorney’s fees. Subsequently,
the NLRC ruled that there was no illegal dismissal and ruled that Roberto moved out from the premises. That
Roberto worked under no work no pay basis.
The case reached the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA reversed the decision of NLRC and reinstated
the LA’s ruling.
Hence, this petition

ISSUE:
Whether or not there is an illegal dismissal in the case at bar.

HELD:
There is an illegal dismissal. The Supreme Court said that the no work no pay scheme is merely a
method of computing compensation and not a basis for determining the existence or absence of employer-
employee relationship.
Anent to the issue on abandonment, Obias did not abandon his job. In the present case, the
petitioners ceased verbally communicating with the respondent and giving him work assignment after
suspecting that he had forged purchase receipts. Under this situation, the respondent was forced to leave
the petitioners’ compound with his family and to transfer to a nearby place. Thus, the respondent’s act of
leaving the petitioners’ premises was in reality not his choice but a situation the petitioners created. The SC
explained that abandonment is a matter of intention that cannot be presumed from equivocal acts. Thus,
there are two elements of abandonment to wit:
1. Failure to report for work or absence without valid or justifiable reason
 2. A clear intent, manifested through overt acts to sever employer-employee relationship.
Hence, the filing of a complaint of illegal dismissal by respondent strongly speaks of intention of returning.
As an employee who was illegally dismissed, Art. 279 of the Labor Code provides the Security of
Tenure. – In cases of regular employment, the employer shall not terminate the services of an employee
except for a just cause or when authorized by this Title. And employee who is unjustly dismissed from work
shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to his full backwages,
inclusive of allowances, and to his other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from the time his
compensation was withheld from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement.