SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 256855. September 13, 2021.]
COLLEN LAPIDEZ LOJA, petitioner,vs. BORACAY REGENCY BEACH RESORT & SPA/HENANN RESORTS, HENRY O. CHUESOY [PRESIDENT], AND LEIZLE M. CERALDE [HR MANAGER], respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 13 September 2021 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 256855 (Collen Lapidez Loja v. Boracay Regency Beach Resort & Spa/Henann Resorts, Henry O. Chuesoy [President], and Leizle M. Ceralde [HR Manager]). — After a judicious review of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition 1 and AFFIRM the Decision 2 dated January 31, 2019 and the Resolution 3 dated February 2, 202l of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CEB-SP No. 11155 for failure of petitioner Collen Lapidez Loja (petitioner) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in affirming the dismissal of his complaint for illegal dismissal, backwages, separation pay, non-payment of monthly incentive for three (3) months, with moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees.
Abandonment is the deliberate and unjustified refusal of an employee to resume his employment. It is a form of neglect of duty, hence, a just cause for termination of employment by the employer. For a valid finding of abandonment, these two (2) factors should be present: (1) the failure to report for work or absence without valid or justifiable reason; and (2) a clear intention to sever employer-employee relationship, with the second as the more determinative factor which is manifested by overt acts from which it may be deduced that the employee has no more intention to work with the employer. The intent to discontinue the employment must be shown by clear proof that it was deliberate and unjustified. 4 The burden to prove whether the employee abandoned his or her work rests on the employer. 5
In this case, respondents Boracay Regency Beach Resort & Spa/Hennan Resorts, with Henry O. Chuesoy as the President and Leizle M. Ceralde as the HR Manager thereof (collectively, respondents) sufficiently established that petitioner abandoned his work as it was shown that: (a) he never returned to work after his preventive suspension; (b) he failed to provide any justifiable reason for such absence; (c) his acts of ignoring the notices and letters sent to him by respondents clearly revealed his intention to sever employment with them; and (d) he never prayed for reinstatement, which would have been indicative of his desire to return to work. 6 Moreover, factual findings of administrative or quasi-judicial bodies, including labor tribunals, are accorded much respect by this Court as they are specialized to rule on matters falling within their jurisdiction especially when these are supported by substantial evidence, 7 as in this case. Clearly, there appears to be no manifest error committed by the appellate court which would merit the reversal of the assailed rulings.
SO ORDERED." (Rosario, J., designated additional member per Special Order No. 2835 dated July 15, 2021).
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. See Petition for Review on Certiorari dated April 14, 2021; rollo, pp. 12-38.
2.Id. at 175-185. Penned by Associate Justice Marilyn B. Lagura-Yap with Associate Justices Edgardo L. Delos Santos (now retired member of the Court) and Dorothy P. Montejo-Gonzaga, concurring.
3.Id. at 193-194. Penned by Associate Justice Marilyn B. Lagura-Yap with Associate Justices Dorothy P. Montejo-Gonzaga and Roberto P. Quiroz, concurring.
4.Agabon v. NLRC, 485 Phil. 248 (2004).
5.Protective Maximum Security Agency, Inc. v. Fuentes, 753 Phil. 482, 513 (2015).
6. See Jo v. NLRC, 381 Phil. 428, 437-438 (2000).
7.Career Philippines Shipmanagement, Inc. v. Silvestre, 823 Phil. 44, 56 (2018)