SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 254982. June 23, 2021.]
JONIE ABAINZA, JR., ABELARDO ABRENICA, AND ALBERTH C. CONTRIDAS, petitioners,vs. FOTON MOTORS, PHILS. AND ROMMEL L. SYTIN, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 23 June 2021 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 254982 (Jonie Abainza, Jr., Abelardo Abrenica, and Alberth C. Contridas v. Foton Motors, Phils. and Rommel L. Sytin). — This petition for review on certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assails the Decision 2 dated July 16, 2020 and Resolution 3 dated December 3, 2020 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 154258. The CA affirmed the Decision 4 dated July 31, 2017 and Resolution 5 dated October 27, 2017 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in NLRC LAC No. 06-002088-17, which found that petitioners Jonie Abainza, Jr. (Abainza), Abelardo Abrenica (Abrenica), and Alberth C. Contridas (Contridas) were validly dismissed from employment by respondent Foton Motors, Phils. (Foton). Time and again, the Court has reiterated that findings of fact of labor tribunals, when affirmed by the CA, are accorded great respect and are binding upon this Court.
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the petition for failure to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in its ruling.
Abainza, Abrenica, and Contridas were dismissed from employment for valid and just causes under the Labor Code. Abainza and Abrenica admitted that they refused Foton's valid order to transfer them to another department due to business exigencies. Such action constitutes willful disobedience of a lawful order of the employer which justifies their dismissal from employment. 6 Further, their sudden and continued failure to report for work, refusal to communicate with Foton, and act of emptying their lockers are more than sufficient indicia of their abandonment. 7 We also find no cogent reason to disturb the findings of the CA that Foton still owes Abainza and Abrenica their proportionate 13th month pay for 2016 and their last salaries.
As to Contridas, in the absence of proof to support his bare assertions that the kasunduan was invalid or that he was forced to execute the waiver and quitclaim, we are likewise inclined to sustain the validity of his dismissal from employment. The findings of the CA and the labor tribunals that Foton had paid his (Contridas') monetary claims are likewise upheld.
As to the alleged non-observance of due process, Abainza, Abrenica, and Contridas only generally asserted that their right to due process was violated by Foton. In the absence of proof, we sustain the findings of the CA and the labor tribunals that Foton observed the due process requirements set forth under the law.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petition is DENIED.
SO ORDERED." (J. Lopez, J., designated additional member per Special Order No. 2822 dated April 7, 2021.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 12-25.
2. Penned by Associate Justice Ronaldo Roberto B. Martin, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Manuel M. Barrios and Florencio Mallanao Mamauag, Jr.; id. at 26-46.
3.Id. at 47-49.
4. Penned by Commissioner Grace M. Venus, with the concurrence of Commissioners Bernardino B. Julve and Leonard Vinz O. Ignacio; id. at 206-219.
5.Id. at 229-233.
6. In Allied Banking Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 461 Phil. 517, 538 (2003), the Court ruled that "the refusal to obey a valid transfer order constitutes willful disobedience of a lawful order of an employer. Employees may object to, negotiate and seek redress against employers for rules or orders that they regard as unjust or illegal. However, until and unless these rules or orders are declared illegal or improper by competent authority, the employees ignore or disobey them at their peril." (Citations omitted.)
7. See Every Nation Language Institute v. Dela Cruz (G.R. No. 225100, February 19, 2020), where the Court explained that to constitute abandonment there must be a clear and deliberate intent to discontinue one's employment without any intention of returning. To successfully raise abandonment as a just cause for dismissal, two elements must concur: first, failure to report for work or absence without valid or justifiable reason, and second, a clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship. The second element, being manifested by overt acts, is the more determinative factor.