Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=81815:177812&catid=1571&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 04:46:23+00:00

Document:
G.R. NO. 177812, June 19, 2013 - CONCRETE SOLUTIONS, INC./PRIMARY STRUCTURES CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ANASTACIO G. ARDIENTE, JR., Petitioners, v. ARTHUR CABUSAS, Respondent.
CONCRETE SOLUTIONS, INC./PRIMARY STRUCTURES CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ANASTACIO G. ARDIENTE, JR., Petitioners, v. ARTHUR CABUSAS, Respondent.
Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari is the Decision1 dated December 21, 2006 of the Court of Appeals, Cebu City, in CA-G.R. SP No. 00685, which affirmed the NLRC decision finding that respondent was illegally dismissed. Also assailed is the CA Resolution2 dated April 24, 2007 denying petitioners' motion for reconsideration.
On February 16, 2001, a report reached petitioners that at around 5 o’clock in the afternoon of that day, respondent, as the driver of Transit Mixer 13, unloaded less than a cubic meter of concrete mix at Cabancalan, Mandaue City, more than two kilometers away from its project site located at Wireless, Mandaue City, instead of returning the excess concrete mix to the plant; and that respondent sold the excess concrete mix to the residents of the place where he unloaded the same.
On March 7, 2001, petitioners' Administrative Assistant, Carlo E. Gimena, submitted an Incident Report5 where he stated that it is a company policy that washing/cleaning of drums must be done inside petitioners' plant to maximize the utilization of concrete residues for precast use; and nearly a cubic meter of concrete mix as excess would have been a substantial quantity for such purpose.
The administrative investigation which was scheduled on April 26, 2001 was postponed to May 4, 2001 and respondent's preventive suspension was extended up to May 5, 2001. Respondent alleged that after the investigation on May 4, 2001, he and his counsel had asked for the result of the investigation and were waiting for such result.
While petitioners were deliberating on the violation committed by respondent, they went over the latter's 201 file and discovered that he appeared not to be registered with the Social Security System as the SSS number he submitted was that of another person in the name of Alex Cabusas.13 Thus, petitioners needed clarifications from respondent, but the latter had been absent since May 6, 2001. On May 25, 2001, petitioners sent respondent a telegram,14 to wit: "You have been absent without official leave since May , 2001. Please notify CSI as soon as possible."
Petitioners submitted to the Department of Labor and Employment an Establishment Termination Report17 indicating that the project where respondent was assigned was already completed and also that respondent was terminated for being absent without leave (AWOL).
Earlier, however, on May 30, 2001, respondent had filed with Regional Arbitration Branch No. VII of Cebu City a Complaint18 for unfair labor practice, illegal dismissal, non-payment of holiday pay, premium pay for holiday, rest day, night shift premium, separation pay and moral damages against petitioners. In his position paper,19 respondent alleged among others: that it was not true that he went on AWOL. He alleged that when the administrative investigation on his alleged theft of company property was conducted and terminated on May 4, 2001, his counsel asked to be furnished a copy of the result of the investigation; that since then, they eagerly waited for such result, thus they were surprised to receive a telegram on May 26, 2001 where he was said to have been AWOL since May 5, 2001; that immediately upon receipt of the telegram, respondent went to petitioners' office, but he was refused entry for the reason that he was AWOL; that there was no valid cause for his dismissal and petitioners found the lame excuse of declaring him AWOL if only to create a semblance of justification for his unlawful termination; that he had previously tendered a follow-up letter for a copy of the resolution of the administrative investigation that was terminated on May 4, 2001, however, petitioners unceremoniously refused to receive a copy of the letter he personally delivered, thus his counsel was compelled to send the letter by way of registered mail on May 29, 2001;20 that petitioners did not reply to his letter and did not even furnish his counsel with a copy of the suspension letter; that petitioners' imputation that he committed dishonest acts was founded on falsehood and fabrications as no evidence was presented during the so-called administrative hearing, except the self-serving and perjured statements of petitioners' employees who were merely cajoled into making unfounded stories. Respondent had prayed for his reinstatement, among others.
Petitioners, through counsel, submitted their position paper refuting respondent's allegations.
WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered DISMISSING this case for lack of merit. Respondents are, however, directed to pay complainant's proportionate 13th month pay in the amount of P1,603.33.
The LA found that respondent was validly dismissed from his employment as he abandoned his job; that he failed to report for work despite the directive through a telegram for him to report back to work. The LA was not convinced of respondent's claim that immediately upon receipt of the telegram, he went to petitioners' office but he was refused entry for the alleged reason that he was AWOL since no evidence was presented to substantiate the same; and that his credibility was doubtful since he claimed that he was dismissed on May 4, 2001, however the records showed that he was being investigated for stealing plastic drums on that day; and that he furnished petitioners with an SSS number which did not belong to him.
As regards respondent's money claims, the LA ruled that since he had worked from January 2, 2001 to May 4, 2001, he was entitled to a proportionate amount of his 13th month pay equivalent to 4 months. However, his claim for salary differential due to underpayment was denied since based on the payroll, he was a paid a salary of P185.00 per day which was the prevailing minimum wage at the time his services were rendered.
Respondent filed an appeal with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) to which petitioners filed their Comment thereto.
Ordering respondents to pay complainant of his 13th month pay in the amount of P1,603.33 as awarded by the Labor Arbiter.
In ruling that there was no abandonment, the NLRC found that respondent's absence was not without justifiable reason since petitioners did not sufficiently make known to respondent that he should report for work on May 6, 2001 because the alleged preventive suspension order was unwritten; that the telegram sent to respondent on May 26, 2001 did not direct him to report for work but merely stated "you have been absent without official leave since May 5, 2001, please notify CSI as soon as possible" and that even before respondent was dismissed for abandonment of work on June 12, 2001, he had already filed a complaint for illegal dismissal on May 30, 2001 which negated any intention on his part to forsake his work.
The NLRC also found that upon receipt of the telegram on May 26, 2001, respondent went to petitioners' office but he was refused entry for the alleged reason that he was AWOL which showed that he was constructively dismissed. However, it found no credence to petitioners' allegation that respondent was a project employee applying the principle that where from circumstances it is apparent that periods have been imposed to preclude acquisition of tenurial security by the employee, they should be disregarded for being contrary to public policy; and that the allegation that respondent was not registered with the SSS and the number he submitted to the company was that of Alex Cabusas has no bearing in this case and did not detract from the fact that he was illegally dismissed from employment.
Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied in a Resolution25 dated March 10, 2005.
Petitioners filed with the CA a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 assailing the NLRC rulings for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. Respondent filed his comment thereto and petitioners filed their reply.
On December 21, 2006, the CA rendered its assailed decision affirming in toto the NLRC decision.
Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied in a Resolution dated April 24, 2007.
The issue for resolution is whether respondent deliberately abandoned his work which is a just cause for his dismissal or whether he was illegally dismissed by petitioners.
It is well settled that in termination cases, the burden of proof rests upon the employer to show that the dismissal was for a just and valid cause, and failure to discharge the same would mean that the dismissal is not justified and, therefore, illegal.30 In this case, petitioners claim that respondent was validly dismissed as he abandoned his work as shown by the following circumstances, to wit: He did not go back to work on May 6, 2001, i.e, after his preventive suspension expired on May 5, 2001; he did not report to work despite receipt of the telegram on May 25, 2001 stating that "he was absent without official leave since May 5, 2001, and to notify CSI as soon as possible," but instead , through his lawyer, sent a letter asking for a copy of the result of the investigation; despite not being given the result of the investigation, respondent still did not bother to report back to work; and the complaint he filed with the LA did not pray for reinstatement.
We find that the elements of abandonment are lacking. The CA did not commit any reversible error in affirming the NLRC's decision that respondent was illegally dismissed for petitioners' failure to substantiate their claim that the former abandoned his work. The circumstances obtaining in this case do not indicate abandonment.
Respondent explained that his absence from work was due to the fact that he and his counsel had asked and were waiting for a copy of result of the investigation on his alleged act of theft or dishonesty conducted on May 4, 2001 but were not given at all. We find his absence from work not sufficient to establish that he already had intention of abandoning his job. Besides, settled is the rule that mere absence or failure to report for work is not tantamount to abandonment of work.35 Even the failure to report for work after a notice to return to work has been served does not necessarily constitute abandonment.36 In fact, when respondent received petitioners' telegram on May 25, 2001 stating that "he was absent without official leave since May 5, 2001, and to notify CSI as soon as possible", he went to petitioners premises but was refused entry for reason that he was AWOL. He also tried to give them a letter dated May 26, 2001 from his counsel requesting for a copy of the resolution of the investigation conducted on May 4, 2001 but petitioners refused to receive the same which prompted respondent's counsel to send the letter dated May 26, 2001 to petitioners by registered mail on May 29, 2001. The fact of petitioners' refusal to receive the letter was stated in that letter but they never refuted the same which in effect, negates petitioners' claim that respondent did not comply with the telegram sent to him.
There is also no merit to petitioners' claim that respondent did not ask for reinstatement. While in his complaint filed with the LA, respondent failed to ask for reinstatement however, in his position paper, he specifically prayed for reinstatement.39 which showed that he had no intention of abandoning his work.
The next question is whether the CA committed a reversible error in affirming the NLRC's award of respondent's reinstatement and backwages.
Petitioners contend that respondent was a project employee and the project to which he was hired was already completed, thus he could not be reinstated anymore.
We rule that respondent is a project employee. His appointment letter showed that he was hired as transit mixer driver for the Concrete Solutions Inc. (CSI) – Batching Plant Project for the period from June 28, 2000 until June 23, 2001. The same letter provided that he was a project employee whose employment was co-terminus with the completion of the project or any phase thereof and upon completion of the particular project or phase, he was free to seek other employment of his choice. There is no evidence showing that respondent did not sign the conforme part of the appointment letter voluntarily. Hence, respondent was bound by the provisions in the appointment letter. Moreover, there is also no showing that the period fixed in the appointment letter was imposed to preclude acquisition of tenurial security by the employee and should be disregarded for being contrary to public policy as ruled by the NLRC since no evidence exists on the record to support such conclusion.
Considering that respondent was dismissed prior to the expiration of the duration of his employment and without a valid or just cause, his termination was therefore illegal. However, respondent could no longer be reinstated since the project he was assigned to was already completely finished. However, we find that he is entitled to the salary corresponding to the unexpired portion of his employment.43 Respondent is entitled to the payment of his salary from the time he was not admitted back to work on May 26, 2001 up to June 23, 2001, the expiration of his employment contract.
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated December 21, 2006 and the Resolution dated April 24, 2007 of the Court of Appeals, Cebu City, in CA-G.R. SP No. 00685 are hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that the order for respondent's reinstatement is deleted and petitioners are DIRECTED to pay respondent his salary from May 26, 2001 up to June 23, 2001 only.
Please take notice that on June 19, 2013 a Decision, copy attached herewith, was rendered by the Supreme Court in the above-entitled case, the original of which was received by this Office on June 19, 2013 at 9:20 a.m.
1 Penned by Associate Justice Pampio A. Abarintos, with Associate Justices Isaias P. Dicdican and Agustin S. Dizon, concurring; rollo, pp. 137-146.
21Rollo, pp. 151-159; Per LA Jose G. Gutierrez.
23Id. At 160-168; Penned by Commissioner Oscar S. Uy concurred in by Commissioners Gerardo C. Nograles and Aurelio D. Menzon.
26 Mame v. Court of Appeals, 549 Phil. 337, 346 (2007).
27Randrada v. Agemar Manning Agency Inc., G.R. NO. 194758, October 24, 2012.
29RBC Cable Master System v. Baluyot, G.R. NO. 172690, January 20, 2009, 576 SCRA 668, 677.
30Faeldonia v. Tong Yak Groceries, G. R. No. 182499, October 2, 2009, 602 SCRA 677.
31Pure Blue Industries, Inc. v. NLRC, 337 Phil. 710, 717 (1997), citing Labor v. NLRC, G.R. NO. 110388, September 14, 1995, 248 SCRA 183 .
32 Id. at 718, citing Cañete v. NLRC, 320 Phil. 313 (1995) .
33Hodieng Concrete Products v. Emilia, G.R. NO. 149180, February 14, 2005, 451 SCRA 249.
35Samarca v. Arc-Men Industries, Inc., 459 Phil. 506, 516 (2003); Aliten v. U Need Lumber and Hardware, G.R. NO. 168931, September 12, 2006, 501 SCRA 577.
37New Ever Marketing, Inc v. Court of Appeals, G.R. NO. 140555, July 14, 2005, 463 SCRA 284, 296.
Regular and Casual Employment. – The provisions of written agreement to the contrary notwithstanding and regardless of the oral agreement of the parties, an employment shall be deemed to be regular where the employee has been engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer, except where the employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking the completion or termination of which has been determined at the time of the engagement of the employee or where the work or services to be performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for the duration of the season.
An employment shall be deemed to be casual if it is not covered by the preceding paragraph: Provided, That, any employee who has rendered at least one year of service, whether such service is continuous or broken, shall be considered a regular employee with respect to the activity in which he is employed and his employment shall continue while such activity exists.
42 Id. at 641, citing See Hilario Rada v. NLRC, G.R. NO. 96078, January 9, 1992, 205 SCRA 69.
44R.P. Dinglasan Construction, Inc. v. Atienza, G.R. NO. 156104, June 29, 2004, 433 SCRA 263, 271. (2004).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.