CASE DIGEST: GOLDEN ACE & AZUR V.

TALDE
G.R. No. 184800 : May 5, 2010

FACTS:

Jose A. Talde (respondent) was hired in 1990 as a carpenter bypetitioner

Golden Ace Builders of which its co-petitioner Arnold Azul (Azul) is the
owner-manager. In February 1999, Azul, alleging the unavailability of
construction projects, stopped giving work assignments to respondent,
prompting the latter to file a complaint for illegal dismissal.

By Decision of January 10, 2001, the Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of

respondent and ordered his immediate reinstatement without loss of
seniority rights and other privileges, and with payment of full backwages,
which at that time was computed at P144,382.23, andthe amount
ofP3,236.37 representing premium pay for rest days, service incentive
leave pay and 13thmonth pay.

Pending their appeal to the National Labor Relations Commission

(NLRC) and in compliance with the Labor Arbiters Decision, petitioners,
through counsel, advised respondent to report for work in the
construction site within 10 days from receipt thereof. Respondent
submitted, however, on May 16, 2001 a manifestation to the Labor
Arbiter that actual animosities existed between him and petitioners and
there had been threats to his life and his familys safety, hence, he opted
for the payment of separation pay. Petitioners denied the existence of
any such animosity.

Meanwhile, the NLRC dismissed petitioners appeal. Petitioners appeal to

the Court of Appeals was dismissed by Decision of August 12, 2004
which attained finality on September 15, 2004.
As an agreement could not be forged by the parties on the satisfaction of
the judgment, the matter was referred to the Fiscal Examiner of the
NLRC who recomputed atP562,804.69 the amount due respondent,
which was approved by the Labor Arbiter by Order of July 5, 2005.A writ
of execution dated July 8, 2005 was thereupon issued.

Finding the amount exorbitant, petitioners filed a motion for

reconsideration with the NLRC, contending that since respondent
refused to report back to work, he should be considered to have
abandoned the same, hence, the recomputation of the wages and benefits
due him should not be beyond May 15, 2001, the date when he
manifested his refusal to be reinstated.

By Resolution of March 9, 2006, the NLRC granted petitioners motion

and accordingly vacated the computation. It held that since respondent
did not appeal the Decision of the Labor Arbiter granting him only
reinstatement and backwages, not separation pay in lieu thereof, he may
not be afforded affirmative relief; and since he refused to go back to
work, he may recover backwages only up to May 20, 2001, the day he
was supposed to return to the job site. Respondents motion for
reconsideration was denied by the NLRC by Resolution of June 30,
2006, hence, he filed a petition forcertiorariwith the Court of Appeals.

By Decisionof September 10, 2008, the appellate court set aside the
NLRC Resolutions, holding that respondent is entitled to both
backwages and separation pay, even if separation pay was not granted by
the Labor Arbiter, the latter in view of the strained relations between the
parties.

Petitioners motion for reconsideration was denied by Resolutionof

March 12, 2009, hence, the present petition for review oncertiorari
ISSUE: Whether the CA erred in awarding separation pay

HELD: The petition fails.

LABOR LAW

The basis for the payment of backwages is different from that for the
award of separation pay. Separation pay is granted where reinstatement
is no longer advisable because of strained relations between the
employee and the employer.Backwages represent compensation that
should have been earned but were not collected because of the unjust
dismissal.The basis for computing backwages is usually the length of the
employee's service while that for separation pay is the actual period
when the employee was unlawfully prevented from working.

As to how both awards should be computed,Macasero v. Southern

Industrial Gases Philippines instructs:

The award of separation pay is inconsistent with a finding that there was
no illegal dismissal, for under Article 279 of the Labor Code and as held
in a catena of cases, an employee who is dismissed without just cause
and without due process is entitled to backwages and reinstatement or
payment of separation pay in lieu thereof:

Thus, an illegally dismissed employee is entitled to two reliefs:

backwages and reinstatement. The two reliefs provided are separate and
distinct.In instanceswhere reinstatement is no longer feasible because of
strained relations between the employee and the employer, separation
pay is granted.In effect, an illegally dismissed employee is entitled to
either reinstatement, if viable, or separation pay if reinstatement is no
longer viable, and backwages.

The normal consequences of respondents illegal dismissal, then, are

reinstatement without loss of seniority rights, and payment of backwages
computed from the time compensation was withheld up to the date of
actual reinstatement.Where reinstatement is no longer viable as an
option, separation pay equivalent to one (1) month salary for every year
of service should be awarded as an alternative.The payment of
separation pay is in addition to payment of backwages.

Velasco v. National Labor Relations Commission emphasizes:

The accepted doctrine is that separation pay may availin lieu

of 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.

Topic: AWOL, Abandonment of Work 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.

G.R. No. 240254 RODESSA QUITEVIS RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner vs. SINTRON SYSTEMS,
INC. AND/OR JOSELITO CAPAQUE, Respondents

Facts: Petitioner Rodessa Rodriguez (Rodriguez) works at Sintron Systems, Inc. (SSI) as Sales
Coordinator since July 4, 2001. Rodriguez filed a complaint for constructive illegal dismissal,
and monetary claims as she was allegedly forced to go on absences in order to avoid the abusive
words of Capaque, for which she filed requests for leave. SSI negated the claims of Ms.
Rodriguez and offered in evidence affidavits of employees who claimed that there was no
shouting that took place during the meeting where allegedly, Capaque humiliated Rodriguez and
shouted at her vindictive words. That it was Rodriguez who was tardy, inefficient and
disrespectful to clients. As to her absenteeism, SSI denied having received requests for leave
from Rodriguez for her absence on November 19 and 20, 2013. As to her succeeding leaves, her
request therefor was denied by SSI in a letter dated December 2, 2013. Hence, in an SSI
memorandum, Rodriguez was warned that her continued absence may be ground for termination
and required her to respond to the memorandum, else her termination would be reported to the
DOLE.

ISSUE: Whether Rodriguez is guilty of abandonment of work

Ruling: Rodriguez is not guilty of abandonment of work Abandonment of employment is a
deliberate and unjustified refusal of an employee to resume his employment, without any
intention of returning. While it is not expressly enumerated under Article 297 of the Labor Code
as a just cause for dismissal of an employee, it has been recognized by jurisprudence as a form
of, or akin to, neglect of duty. 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
employeremployee relationship as manifested by some overt acts. The rule is that one who
alleges a fact bears the burden of proving it, Hence, SSI has the burden of proof to show a
deliberate and unjustified refusal of the employee to resume her employment without any
intention of returning. It is therefore incumbent upon SSI to determine Rodriguez's interest or
noninterest in the continuance of her employment. Here, the continued filing of applications for
leave of absence by Rodriguez even without awaiting SSI's approval indicate that she did not
intend to leave her work in SSI for good. Thus, Respondents failed to prove the second element
of abandonment

G.R. No. 219419, April 10, 2019 CAROLINA'S LACE SHOPPE, LOURDES RAGAS AND
CLAUDINE MANGASING, PETITIONERS, v. GLORIA MAQUILAN AND JOY
MAQUILAN, RESPONDENTS. Topic: Dismissal as a Penalty of Last Resort Case Doctrines: 1.
Rule in Illegal Dismissal Cases. “In illegal dismissal cases, the fundamental rule is that when an
employer interposes the defense of resignation, the burden to prove that the employee indeed
voluntarily resigned necessarily rests upon the employer” 2. How an employee’s act of severing
employment may be measured. “x x x. The act of the employee before and after the alleged
resignation must be considered to determine whether in fact, he or she intended to relinquish
such employment. If the employer introduced evidence purportedly executed by an employee as
proof of voluntary resignation and the employee specifically denies the authenticity and due
execution of said document, the employer is burdened to prove the due execution and
genuineness of such

Facts: Gloria and Joy Maquilan (Respondents) were employed by Carolina’s Lace Shoppe (CLS)
as sales clerk and beader respectively. In April 2008, the DOLE inspected CLS. Upon inspection,
one of the latter’s employees, Santiago Espultero reported that he was receiving a below
minimum wage. Thereafter, he was terminated and was made to sign a quitclaim in order to
receive his separation pay. A month after, Gloria and Joy were terminated under the same
circumstances, submitting a resignation letter and forced to sign a quitclaim. Gloria and Joy then
filed a case for illegal dismissal with money claims against CLS. In response, CLS alleged that
they were not illegally dismissed, evidenced by their resignation letter. Issue: Whether or not
Gloria and Joy were illegally dismissed. Ruling: Yes, they were illegally dismissed. The SC held
that “the act of the employee before and after the alleged resignation must be considered to
determine whether in fact, he or she intended to relinquish such employment.” In this regard,
there was no clear intention on the part of Gloria and Joy to relinquish their employment,
evidenced by their act of filing a case of illegal dismissal with money claims. Such act of filing
said complain is difficult to reconcile with voluntary resignation.
On this note, this Court finds it proper to delve into the voluntariness of Gloria's
resignation.
Citing Fortuny Garments/Johnny Co v. Castro,22 the case of Torreda v. Investment and
Capital Corporation of the Philippines 23 discusses how an employee's act of severing
from employment may be measured, to wit:

xxx. The act of the employee before and after the alleged resignation must be

considered to determine whether in fact, he or she intended to relinquish such
employment. If the employer introduces evidence purportedly executed by an
employee as proof of voluntary resignation and the employee specifically denies the
authenticity and due execution of said document, the employer is burdened to prove
the due execution and genuineness of such document. (Emphasis and underscoring in
the original; citation omitted)
Verily, the acts preceding and subsequent to the employee's resignation must be taken
into consideration.

Here, prior to her resignation, there was no indication that Gloria intended to relinquish
her employment. Such alleged resignation actually took place after the DOLE conducted
an inspection, which yielded to an information that CLS was not giving its employees
their due wages. A month after such inspection, like the employee who reported such
labor standards violation, Gloria was separated from employment by virtue of a
resignation letter. In this regard, there was no clear intention on the part of Gloria to
relinquish her employment.

As to her acts after her resignation, Gloria filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and
money claims 12 days thereafter. On this note, this Court reiterates that such act of
filing said complaint is difficult to reconcile with voluntary resignation. 24

G.R. No. 239433 September 16, 2020 BANTOGON vs PVC MASTER MFG. CORP.
FACTS: Bantogon was employed by Boatwin International Corporation as a helper. In less than
a year, he got promoted to machine operator. Boatwin changed its trade name to PVC. Later,
petitioner was prevented from reporting for work because of his participation in the illegal
dismissal case of his brother against PVC. When PVC learned of his participation in his brother's
illegal dismissal case, it refused to give him any further assignment which consequently equated
to constructive termination. Bantogon charged respondent with illegal dismissal alleging that
PVC failed to observe the fundamental requirements of due process in dismissing him. PVC
disagreed and countered that it commenced operations just a month before the alleged dismissal.
It asserted that it is a separate and distinct entity from Boatwin. It denied that petitioner was ever
its employee. ISSUE: WON petitioner is an employee of PVC.

The mere change in the corporate name is not considered under the law as the creation of a new
corporation. Hence, the renamed corporation remains liable for the illegal dismissal of its
employee separated under that guise.
HELD: Yes. Aside from a change of corporate name from Boatwin to PVC, there were no other
changes in PVC's circumstances indicating that the supposed assets sale took place, much less,
that it truly had a corporate existence distinct from that of Boatwin. To repeat, the so-called
assets sale was never established. Undoubtedly, PVC is the employer of petitioner. Hence, as
petitioner's employer, it had the burden to prove that petitioner's termination of employment was
valid. This PVC failed to do. Here, it is clearly proven that PVC constructively dismissed
petitioner when it abruptly prevented him from reporting for work without just or authorized
cause. It failed to accord petitioner an opportunity to be heard and defend himself which is a
basic requirement of due process in the termination of employment. PVC is, thus, guilty of
illegal dismissal.