8/2/2019 Jenny m. Agabon and Virgilio c. Agabon vs. Nlrc, Riviera Home Improvements, Inc. and Vicente Angeles

1/1

JENNY M. AGABON and VIRGILIO C. AGABON vs. NLRC, RIVIERA HOMEIMPROVEMENTS, INC. and VICENTE ANGELES(G.R. No. 158693)

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:

Facts: Private respondent is engaged in the business of selling and installingornamental and construction materials. It employed petitioners as gypsum boardand cornice installers. Both were dismissed for abandonment of work.

Petitioners then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and payment of money claims.LA rendered a decision declaring the dismissals illegal and ordered privaterespondent to pay the monetary claims.

On appeal, NLRC reversed the LA decision because it found that the petitioners hadabandoned their work, and were not entitled to backwages and separation pay. Theother money claims awarded were also denied for lack of evidence.

Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with the CA.

CA ruled that the dismissal of the petitioners was not illegal because they hadabandoned their employment but ordered the payment of money claims.

Issue: W/N petitioners were illegally dismissed.Ruling: Negative.

Petitioners assert that they were dismissed because the private respondent refusedto give them assignments unless they agreed to work on a pakyaw basis whenthey reported for duty. They did not agree on this arrangement because it wouldmean losing benefits as SSS members. Petitioners also claim that privaterespondent did not comply with the twin requirements of notice and hearing.

Private respondent maintained that petitioners were not dismissed but hadabandoned their work. In fact, private respondent sent two letters to the last known

addresses of the petitioners advising them to report for work. Private respondentsmanager even talked to petitioner Virgilio by telephone to tell him about a newassignment. But petitioners did not report for work because they had subcontractedto perform installation work for another company. Petitioners also demanded for anincrease in their wage. When this was not granted, petitioners stopped reporting forwork and filed the illegal dismissal case.

CA, after a careful review of the facts, ruled that petitioners dismissal was for a justcause. They had abandoned their employment and were already working for anotheremployer.

Abandonment is the deliberate and unjustified refusal of an employee to resumehis employment. It is a form of neglect of duty, hence, a just cause for termination ofemployment by the employer. For a valid finding of abandonment, these two factorsshould be present: (1) the failure to report for work or absence without valid orjustifiable reason; and (2) a clear intention to sever employer-employee relationship,with the second as the more determinative factor which is manifested by overt actsfrom which it may be deduced that the employees has no more intention to work.The intent to discontinue the employment must be shown by clear proof that it was

deliberate and unjustified.

Subcontracting for another company clearly showed the intention to sever theemployer-employee relationship with private respondent. The employer may not becompelled to continue to employ such persons whose continuance in the service willpatently be inimical to his interests.Procedurally, if the dismissal is based on a just cause under Article 282, theemployer must give the employee two written notices and a hearing or opportunity tobe heard if requested by the employee before terminating the employment: a noticespecifying the grounds for which dismissal is sought a hearing or an opportunity tobe heard and after hearing or opportunity to be heard, a notice of the decision todismiss.

The dismissal should be upheld because it was established that the petitionersabandoned their jobs to work for another company. Private respondent, however,did not follow the notice requirements. The law mandates the twin noticerequirements to the employees last known address. Thus, it should be held liablefor non-compliance with the procedural requirements of due process. Petitioner mustindemnify the private respondent.The rule thus evolved: where the employer had a valid reason to dismiss anemployee but did not follow the due process requirement, the dismissal may beupheld but the employer will be penalized to pay an indemnity to the employee. Thisbecame known as the Wenphil orBelated Due Process Rule.