Jon de Ysasi III V NLRC and Jon de Ysasi
Jon de Ysasi III V NLRC and Jon de Ysasi
Jon de Ysasi III V NLRC and Jon de Ysasi
NLRC and Jon De Ysasi The Supreme Court, in making its decision, noted that the
lawyers for both camps failed to exert all reasonable efforts
to smooth over legal conflicts, preferably out of court and
Facts: especially in consideration of the direct and immediate
Jon de Ysasi employed his son, Jon De Ysasi III as consanguineous ties between their clients especially
farm administrator of Hacienda Manucao in Hinigaran, considering that the parties involved are father and son. This
Negros Occidental. As farm administrator, he was case may have never reached the courts had there been an
responsible for the supervision of everyday activities and earnest effort by the lawyers to have both parties find an off
operations of the farm. court settlement but records show that no such effort was
made. The useful function of a lawyer is not only to conduct
In November, where he started to not report to work litigation but to avoid it whenever possible by advising
because of some health issues, he was confined and while settlement or withholding suit.
he’s nursing from his infections, he was terminated by his
father Jon De Ysasi without due process. De Ysasi III filed Rule 1.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
against his father for illegal dismissal before the National explicitly provides that “(a) lawyer shall encourage his
Labor Relations Commission. His father invoked that his son client to avoid, end or settle the controversy if it will
actually abandoned his work. admit of a fair settlement.”
Both counsel fell short of what was expected of them, despite
their avowed duties as officers of the court. In the same
Issue: manner, the labor arbiter who handled this regrettable case
Whether or not Jon De Ysasi III abandoned his work? has been less than faithful to the letter and spirit of the Labor
Code mandating that a labor arbiter “shall exert all efforts
towards the amicable settlement of a labor dispute within his
HELD: jurisdiction”. The court is saddened by the thought that it
contributed to breaking instead of strengthening the familial
No. His absence from work does not constitute bonds.
abandonment. To constitute abandonment, there must be
a.) failure to report for work or absence without valid
or justifiable reason, and
b.) a clear intention to sever the employer-employee
relationship, with the second element as the more
determinative factor and being manifested by some overt
acts. No such intent was proven in this case.