University of the Philippines College of Law

J00D
Just Causes claimed by Employer - Abandonment

E.G. & I. CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION and EDSEL GALEOS,

petitioners, vs. ANANIAS P. SATO, NILO BERDIN, ROMEO M. LACIDA,
JR., and HEIRS OF ANECITO S. PARANTAR, SR., namely: YVONNE,
Case Name
KIMBERLY MAE, MARYKRIS, ANECITO, JR., and JOHN BRYAN, all
surnamed PARANTAR, respondents.|||

DN | Date G.R. No. 182070 | February 16, 2011

Ponente NACHURA, J.:
E.G & I. Construction Corporation (EGI) – Construction company, employer.
Petitioner/s
Edsel Galeos (Edsel) – (Did not specify who)
Ananias P. Sato, (Ananias) – Laborer under EGI
Nilo Berdin, (Nilo) Laborer under EGI
Romeo M. Lacida, Jr., (Romeo) Laborer under EGI
Respondent/s
Heirs Of Anecito S. Parantar, Sr., Namely: Yvonne, Kimberly Mae, Marykris,
Anecito, Jr., And John Bryan, All Surnamed Parantar – (Heirs) of Laborer
under EGI
Respondents were laborers employed by petitioner. They were all dismissed from
work and refused entry into work premises. Fileed complaint for illegal
Case dismissal, but EGI (petitioner) raised the defense that they abandoned work.
Summary SC finds that there was illegal dismissal as EGI had burden of proof of
showing that there was abandonment. They only presented payrolls and time
records which are insufficient to prove abandonment.
 Abandonment – for abandonment to exist, it must be proven that:
o (a) that the employee must have failed to report for work or must have
been absent without valid or justifiable reason;
o (b) that there must have been a clear intention to sever the employer-
employee relationship manifested by some overt acts
 Burden of Proof – in an illegal dismissal cause, the burden of proof to prove
Doctrine dismissal for just cause rests on the employer. Same applies in abandonment.
Employer must prove that there was deliberate and unjustified refusal to
resume employment on the part of the employee, without any intent of
returning.
 Mere Absence – mere absence is insufficient. There must be unequivocal
intent to discontinue employment.
 RELEVANT FACTS
1. Ananias Sato
a. Oct. 1990 - Respondent, Ananias Sato was hired by petitioner, EG&I
Construction Corporation as a grader operator1. Ananias worked for more than
(13) years in the company.
i. April 2004 – Ananias discovered that EGI was not remitting his premium
contributions to the SSS. Demanded that they be remitted. Due to this, he
was removed as a grader operator and made to perform manual labor.
b. July 2004 – SSS inspectors went to EGI to check compliance with the SSS law.
i. July 22 – Ananias was terminated from employment. Could not find work
because he was blacklisted from other construction companies and was
prevented from entering EGI project sites.
2. Other respondents were all required by EGI to sign several documents purporting to be
employment contracts. They signed without verifying contents out of fear of forfeiting
employment. They were required to work from 7AM – 5PM daily. They were assigned to
various construction projects and tasked with setting up steel bars, mixing cement, etc
a. Nilo Berdin – steelman/laborer – hired in 1991
b. Anecito Parantar – Steelman – hired Feb 1997
c. Romeo Lacida, Jr. – Laborer – hired 2001
3. July 24 2004 – Project engineer of Nilo, Anecito and Romeo instructed them to sign
various documents. However, they refused as it was in English which they did not
understand. Due to their refusal they were terminated on the spot and given their weekly
wages, minus (3) days worth for their refusal to sign.
Case Trail
4. July 26 2004 – Respondents filed complaints with the Regional Arbitration Branch of
Cebu for illegal dismissal, underpayment of wages, holiday pay, 13th month pay and
service incentive leave pay.
a. EGI defended that respondents abandoned work starting July 22, that they sent
letters to them advising that they reported to work but they refused.
i. RE: Ananias – EGI alleged that it admonished Ananias for having an illicit
affair. In retaliation, Ananias complained to the SSS for alleged non-
remittance. That his work was substandard, habitually tardy and incurred
unexplained absences.
5. July 27 2005 – Labor Arbiter ruled that there was illegal dismissal. Ordered separation
pay and money claims.
6. July 31 2006 – NLRC REVERSED LA. However, ordered 13th month pay.
a. Basis that respondents failed to substantiate claim of dismissal, no written notice
of dismissal. Withdrew money claims because EGI submitted copies of payrolls.
7. Oct 24 2007 – CA REVERSED NLRC – Reinstated LA
1
Considered as technical labor
 a. Basis being that written notice of dismissal not pre-requisite for a finding of
illegal dismissal. No abandonment as they were refused entry. Documents
submitted by EGI(Payrolls, etc.) were submitted late (Only before NLRC, not
LA) which gave respondents no opportunity to refute the entries.
8. Led to current appeal.

Issue/s Ratio Decidendi

1. W/N  Abandonment – for abandonment to exist, it must be proven that:
were o (a) that the employee must have failed to report for work or must
illegally
have been absent without valid or justifiable reason;
dismissed
? – YES o (b) that there must have been a clear intention to sever the
employer-employee relationship manifested by some overt acts
 Burden of Proof – in an illegal dismissal cause, the burden of proof to
prove dismissal for just cause rests on the employer. Same applies in
abandonment. Employer must prove that there was deliberate and
unjustified refusal to resume employment on the part of the employee,
without any intent of returning.
 Mere Absence – mere absence is insufficient. There must be unequivocal
intent to discontinue employment.
 Application to Facts
o SC agrees with finding of CA that absence of respondents was due
to EGI barring them from entering construction sites. Failure to
report for work after a notice to return to work has been served
does not necessarily constitute abandonment. Intent to discontinue
employment must be shown by clear proof that it was deliberate
and unjustified. EGI failed to show any overt acts committed by
respondents to establish intent to abandon.
o Filing of illegal dismissal case after alleged abandonment
inconsistent with abandonment.
o RE: Ananias – EGI claims that Ananias abandoned work on (6)
days in 2004. However, CA findings show that Ananias worked on
3//6 days based off of the payrolls and time records that EGI
submitted. As to the other (3) days, no time record and payroll
documents were submitted.

 Payment – Employer has burden of proving that there is payment after

employee alleges non-payment. Here, submission of payrolls and time
records only before the NLRC improper as respondents were given no
chance to refute the contents. As a consequence, SC rules in favor of labor
 due to doubt as to evidence.

RULING

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Decision dated October 24, 2007 and the
Resolution dated March 3, 2008 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 02316 are hereby
AFFIRMED.

Costs against the petitioners.

SO ORDERED.

Notes