Petitioner is not guilty of abandonment where, to be a valid cause for dismissal, there must be concurrence of intention to abandon and some overt act from which it may be inferred that the employee had no more interest to continue working in his job. An employee who forthwith takes steps to protect his layoff cannot by any logic be said to have abandoned his work. Abandonment as a just and valid ground for dismissal requires the deliberate, unjustified refusal of the employee to resume his employment. The second element is the more determinative factor and must be evinced by overt acts. Likewise, the burden of proof is on the employer to show the employee s clear and deliberate intent to discontinue his employment without intention of returning.
Mere absence is insufficient.
Manikan All the abovementioned elements are unavailing in the present case. First, petitioner s failure to report for work was with justifiable reason. His wife had just suffered a nervous breakdown. Petitioner was under extreme stress in coping with the day to day living. Under the circumstances, we find petitioner s absences supported with valid reason.