THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 194179. February 27, 2013.]
WEST PACK TRUCKING SERVICES AND ANTONIO S. LINDOG, petitioners, vs. ROLANDO M. GEPANA, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated February 27, 2013, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 194179 (West Pack Trucking Services and Antonio S. Lindog v. Rolando M. Gepana). — This resolves the Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court filed by petitioners assailing the Decision 1 dated January 15, 2010 and Resolution 2 dated October 11, 2010 of the Court of Appeals.
Abandonment is a matter of intention and cannot lightly be presumed from certain equivocal acts, especially during times of hardship. Thus, we have ruled in a series of cases that there are two elements that must concur in order for an act to constitute abandonment: (1) failure to report for work or absence without valid or justifiable reason; and (2) a clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship. To prove abandonment, the employer must show that the employee deliberately and unjustifiably refused to resume his employment without any intention of returning. 3
Here, petitioners dismally failed to discharge this burden. To prove the charge of abandonment, petitioners merely presented respondent's Certificate of Employment, which, at best, merely proves that the latter was employed by them. It does not in any way prove that respondent abandoned his job and has no intention of returning. cDTCIA
As aptly found by the appellate court, petitioners could have presented better evidence to buttress their claim of abandonment such as respondent's daily time record, to prove the dates, respondent was on absence without leave; or any letter wherein they required respondent to report for work and explain his unauthorized absences. But since they failed to present competent evidence to prove abandonment, petitioners' claim cannot be given credence for lack of evidentiary support.
Ergo, since petitioners failed to prove that respondent clearly, voluntarily and intentionally abandoned his work, the Labor Arbiter and Court of Appeal's finding of illegal dismissal must be upheld.
Thus, after careful review of the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court resolves to DENY the present petition.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LUCITA ABJELINA SORIANODivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 39-50.
2.Id. at 52-55.
3.Josan, JPS, Santiago Cargo Movers and Mary Grace S. Parungao v. Eduardo Ramos Aduna, G.R. No. 190794, February 22, 2012.