GROUP 5 | MERILLENO | NARANJO | NAVARRO | NERIA

BARON v. EPE TRANSPORT, INC.

G.R. No. 202645, August 05, 2015
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:

FACTS:
Petitioners were employed as taxi drivers by Respondent EPE Transport and were paid on a
boundary system. They were members of the EPE Transport, Inc. Drivers' Union-Filipinong
Samahang Manggagawa (FSM), the exclusive bargaining agent of the taxi drivers in EPE.
Petitioners questioned the boundary rates imposed, claiming that they are not in accordance
with the CBA, however, they were told that if they do not want to follow the company policy, they
are free to go. Thereafter, Baron and Melendres were prevented from entering the premises and
were no longer allowed to use taxi unit. Petitioners filed a complaint for unfair labor practice and
refund for overcharged boundary and illegal dismissal. Respondent claims that petitioners were
not illegally dismissed on the ground that the latter abandoned their work.
LA dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction over the ULP issue as the same was covered by
the CBA which specifically calls for grievance machinery. It gave more credence to
Respondent’s claim that Petitioners went AWOL after filing the complaint. NLRC reversed LA’s
decision, finding illegal dismissal. CA reinstated LA’s decision and concurred with the latter that
Petitioners’ complaint for illegal dismissal was unsubstantiated; that Respondent’s statement
does not amount automatically amount to dismissal.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Petitioners were illegally dismissed.
HELD:
Yes.
For an employee's dismissal to be valid, (a) it must be for a valid cause and (b) the employee
must be afforded due process. The burden of proving that an employee was not dismissed or, if
dismissed, his dismissal was not illegal fully rests on the employer, whether the employer admits
or does not admit the dismissal pursuant to Art. 277 (b) of the Labor Code.
Abandonment connotes a deliberate and unjustified refusal on the part of the employee to
resume his employment. For it to exist, two (2) elements must concur: (a) the failure to report for
work or absence without valid or justifiable cause; and (b) clear intention to sever the employer-
employee relationship, with the second element as the more determinative factor and being
manifested by some overt acts. Mere absence or failure to report for work is not tantamount to
abandonment of work. Respondents’ claim of abandonment is belied by the fact that shortly after
petitioners ceased from working, they instituted the complaint for illegal dismissal. In this case,
no proof was adduced by respondents to prove their theory of abandonment. Nothing on record
would show that petitioners' absence from work was deliberate and unjustified, with a clear intent
to sever the employment relationship. An employee who forthwith takes steps to protest his layoff
cannot, as a general rule, be said to have abandoned his work, for it is well-settled that the filing
by an employee of a complaint for illegal dismissal is proof enough of his desire to return to work,
thus negating any suggestion of abandonment.
Since petitioners' abandonment was not proven by respondents in this case, the NLRC correctly
ruled that the former were illegally dismissed.
Petition granted.
COMMENTS:
Our group concur with the decision of the Court finding petitioners illegally dismissed. Pursuant
to the Labor Code, the burden of proving that employees were not dismissed illegally rests upon
the employer. Here, EPE Transport failed to prove the existence of intent on the part of the
petitioners to abandon their work. Moreover, it is of general knowledge that if a person intends
to abandon something, he or she would just leave the matter without doing anything about it. In
the case at bar, it is with astounding clarity that the petitioners did not intend to abandon their
work on the ground that they did something to maintain, continue, and protect it by filing a
complaint in court.