SECOND DIVISION
[UDK 16046. January 22, 2018.]
RICHARD SUAREZ JAMILI AND ARNOLDO C. SOTIL, petitioners,vs. PASCUAL LINER, INCORPORATED AND/OR MARLON PASCUAL SORIANO, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 22 January 2018 which reads as follows:
"UDK 16046 (Richard Suarez Jamili and Arnoldo C. Sotil v. Pascual Liner, Incorporated and/or Marlon Pascual Soriano)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition and AFFIRM the April 24, 2017 1 and October 10, 2017 2 Resolutions of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 145631 for failure of petitioners Richard Suarez Jamili (Jamili) and Arnoldo C. Sotil (Sotil; collectively, petitioners) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in upholding the dismissal of their complaint for illegal dismissal against respondents Pascual Liner, Incorporated and/or its Operations Manager, Marlon Pascual Soriano (respondents).
As correctly ruled by the CA, respondents were able to establish that petitioners had abandoned their employment, given that Sotil reported back to work only on September 4, 2014, or four (4) months and seven (7) days after he last reported for duty on April 27, 2014, without justifiable explanation and despite the notice to explain and the subsequent notice of termination sent at his last known address. On the other hand, Jamili did not report for work anymore since June 28, 2014, despite the requisite notice to explain and the subsequent notice of termination sent at his last known address on August 21, 2014 and September 5, 2014, respectively. It is settled that abandonment of work has been construed as "a clear and deliberate intent to discontinue one's employment without any intention of returning back." To justify the dismissal of an employee on this ground, two (2) elements must concur, namely: (a) the failure to report for work or absence without valid or justifiable reason; and (b) a clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship. 3 Further, the CA aptly found that petitioners were not denied due process as they were given the opportunity to explain their side through the notices sent to them at their last known addresses, but failed to do so without compelling justification.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Not attached to the rollo; see rollo, p. 4.
2.Id. at 32-34. Penned by Associate Justice Normandie B. Pizarro with Associate Justices Samuel H. Gaerlan and Jhosep Y. Lopez concurring.
3. See Demex Rattancraft, Inc. v. Leron, G.R. No. 204288, November 8, 2017; citations omitted.
Although abandonment of work is not expressly enumerated as a just cause under Article 297 of the Labor Code, jurisprudence has recognized it as a form of or akin to neglect of duty. Article 297 of the Labor Code enumerates the just causes for the dismissal of an employee:
Art. 297. Termination by Employer. — An employer may terminate an employment for any of the following causes:
(a) Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his employer or representative in connection with his work;
(b) Gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties;
(c) Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized representative;
(d) Commission of a crime or offense by the employee against the person of his employer or any immediate member of his family or his duly authorized representatives; and
(e) Other causes analogous to the foregoing.