Case No.

G.R. No. 187200               May 5, 2010

GOLDEN ACE BUILDERS and ARNOLD U. AZUL, Petitioners,
vs.
JOSE A. TALDE, Respondent.

Citing the case of Velasco v. National Labor Relations Commission  emphasizes:

The accepted doctrine is that separation pay may avail in lieu  of reinstatement if
reinstatement is no longer practical or in the best interest of the parties.
Separation pay in lieu of reinstatement may likewise be awarded if the employee
decides not to be reinstated. (emphasis in the original; italics supplied)

Case No. 2:

G.R. No. 184517               October 8, 2013

SME BANK INC., ABELARDO P. SAMSON, OLGA SAMSON and

AURELIO VILLAFLOR, JR., Petitioners,
vs.
PEREGRIN T. DE GUZMAN,EDUARDO M. AGUSTIN, JR., ELICERIO
GASPAR, , RICARDO GASPAR JR., EUFEMIA ROSETE, FIDEL
ESPIRITU, SIMEONESPIRITU, JR., and LIBERATO
MANGOBA, Respondents.

Respondent employees were illegally dismissed.

In order to withstand the test of validity, resignations must be made

voluntarily and with the intention of relinquishing the office, coupled
with an act of relinquishment.41 Therefore, in order to determine
whether the employees truly intended to resign from their respective
posts, we cannot merely rely on the tenor of the resignation letters,
but must take into consideration the totality of circumstances in each
particular case.
Here, the records show that Elicerio, Ricardo, Fidel, and Liberato only
tendered resignation letters because they were led to believe that, upon
reapplication, they would be reemployed by the new management. 42 As it
turned out, except for Simeon, Jr., they were not rehired by the new
management. Their reliance on the representation that they would be
reemployed gives credence to their argument that they merely
submitted courtesy resignation letters because it was demanded of
them, and that they had no real intention of leaving their posts. We
therefore conclude that Elicerio, Ricardo, Fidel, and Liberato did not
voluntarily resign from their work; rather, they were terminated from their
employment.

CASE NO: 3

G.R. No. 204288, November 08, 2017

DEMEX RATTANCRAFT, INC. AND NARCISO T. DELA

MERCED, Petitioners, v. ROSALIO A. LERON, Respondent.

Abandonment of work has been construed as "a clear and

deliberate intent to discontinue one's employment without
any intention of returning back."49 To justify the dismissal of
an employee on this ground, two (2) elements must concur,
namely: "(a) the failure to report for work or absence without
valid or justifiable reason; and, (b) a clear intention to sever the
employer-employee relationship."50

Mere failure to report to work is insufficient to support a

charge of abandonment. The employer must adduce clear
evidence of the employee's "deliberate, unjustified refusal . . . to
resume his [or her] employment," which is manifested through
the employee's overt acts.51

G.R. No. 240254 RODESSA QUITEVIS RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner vs. SINTRON SYSTEMS,
INC. AND/OR JOSELITO CAPAQUE, Respondents
Doctrine: Abandonment of employment is a deliberate and unjustified refusal of an employee to
resume his employment, without any intention of returning. It requires the concurrence of two
elements: 1) failure to report for work or absence without valid or justifiable reason; and 2) a
clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship as manifested by some overt acts.

Case No. 3
COCOLAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, petitioner, vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and JEREMIAS
MAGO, respondents.
[G.R. No. 98458. July 17, 1996.]

 ID.; REQUIREMENTS OF PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS IN EMPLOYEE

DISMISSAL. —

Petitioner's failure to give private respondent the benefit of a hearing and an

investigation before his termination constitutes an infringement of his right to due
process of law. It is an established rule of long standing that, to effect a completely
valid and unassailable dismissal, an employer must show not only sufficient
ground therefor but must also prove that procedural due process had been observed
by giving the employee two notices: one, of the intention to dismiss, indicating
therein his acts or omissions complained against, and two, notice of the decision to
dismiss; and an opportunity to answer and rebut the charges against him, in
between such notices. "The twin requirements of notice and hearing constitute
essential elements of due process in cases of employee dismissal: the
requirement of notice is intended to inform the employee concerned of the
employer's intent to dismiss and the reason for the proposed dismissal; upon
the other hand, the requirement of hearing affords the employee an
opportunity to answer his employer's charges against him accordingly to
defend himself therefrom before dismissal is effected. Neither of these two
requirements can be dispensed with without running afoul of the due process
requirement of the 1987 Constitution."

Case No: 4

G.R. No. 158693             November 17, 2004

JENNY M. AGABON and VIRGILIO C. AGABON, petitioners,
vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (NLRC), RIVIERA
HOME IMPROVEMENTS, INC. and VICENTE ANGELES, respondents.

Clearly, the bare act of failing to observe the notice requirement gives
rise to nominal damages assessable against the employer and due
the employee. The Labor Code indubitably entitles the employee to notice
even if dismissal is for just cause, even if there is no apparent intent to void
such dismissals deficiently implemented. It has also been held that one's
employment, profession, trade, or calling is a "property right" and the
wrongful interference therewith gives rise to an actionable wrong