This case affirms that an employee’s absence from work due to detention on unfounded criminal charges does not constitute abandonment and cannot justify dismissal. The Supreme Court reiterated that employers must prove an employee’s clear intention to abandon their job to validate a dismissal on those grounds. This ruling protects employees from losing their jobs due to circumstances beyond their control, specifically wrongful detention.

When Imprisonment Isn’t Abandonment: Can an Employer Dismiss a Detained Worker?

The core question in Asian Terminals, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission revolved around whether Romeo Labrague’s prolonged absence, stemming from his detention on criminal charges, constituted abandonment of his employment. Labrague, a stevedore antigo, was absent for nearly three years due to his arrest and detention. Asian Terminals, Inc. (ATI) eventually terminated his employment, citing absence without official leave (AWOL). The pivotal point: Was Labrague’s detention a valid reason for his absence, or did it signal an intent to abandon his job?

To establish abandonment as a valid ground for dismissal, employers must demonstrate two key elements: the employee’s intention to deliberately abandon their employment without justification, and overt acts that indicate they no longer intend to work. In this case, the Court emphasized that ATI failed to prove Labrague’s intention to abandon his job. His absence was involuntary, compelled by his detention. The Court drew on previous rulings, such as Magtoto v. National Labor Relations Commission and Pedroso v. Castro, which established that absences due to baseless detention cannot be considered abandonment.

A crucial aspect of the case was ATI’s awareness of Labrague’s detention. The termination notice explicitly mentioned his imprisonment. The Court viewed ATI’s later skepticism about the detention as an afterthought, inadmissible in a Rule 45 petition, which generally bars re-evaluation of undisputed facts. The Court also emphasized that mere absence, even after notices to return to work, does not automatically equate to abandonment, especially when the absence is involuntary.

The Court referenced Standard Electric Manufacturing Corporation v. Standard Electric Employees Union-NAFLU-KMU to further clarify the elements of abandonment, stating, “Abandonment is a matter of intention and cannot lightly be inferred or legally presumed from certain equivocal acts. To constitute as such, two requisites must concur: first, the employee must have failed to report for work or must have been absent without valid or justifiable reason; and second, there must have been a clear intention on the part of the employee to sever the employer-employee relationship as manifested by some overt acts, with the second element being the more determinative factor.” This reiterates that the employee’s intent is the key factor.

Regarding the award of backwages, the Court upheld the Court of Appeals’ decision, despite the NLRC not initially granting them, citing St. Michael’s Institute v. Santos, explaining: “[T]he Court of Appeals is imbued with sufficient authority and discretion to review matters, not otherwise assigned as errors on appeal, if it finds that their consideration is necessary in arriving at a complete and just resolution of the case or to serve the interests of justice or to avoid dispensing piecemeal justice.” Illegally dismissed employees are entitled to backwages as a matter of right.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision that Labrague’s dismissal was illegal. However, it modified the ruling to absolve Atty. Rodolfo G. Corvite, Jr. from solidary liability, finding no evidence of bad faith or malice on his part.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	Whether an employee’s absence due to detention on criminal charges constitutes abandonment, justifying dismissal.
What is required to prove abandonment by an employee?	Employers must demonstrate the employee’s deliberate intention to abandon their job and overt acts showing they no longer intend to work.
What did the court say about absence due to detention?	The Court ruled that absence due to detention on unfounded criminal charges is excusable and does not constitute abandonment.
Did the employer’s knowledge of the detention matter in this case?	Yes, the employer’s awareness of the employee’s detention was a significant factor in the Court’s decision.
What are backwages?	Backwages are the wages an illegally dismissed employee would have earned had they not been dismissed.
Are illegally dismissed employees entitled to backwages?	Yes, illegally dismissed employees are entitled to backwages as a matter of right.
Was the lawyer of the company held liable?	No, the lawyer of the company was not held solidarily liable because there was no finding of bad faith or malice on his part.
What was the ultimate ruling in this case?	The Supreme Court affirmed the illegality of the dismissal but absolved the company’s lawyer from individual liability.

This case underscores the importance of considering the circumstances surrounding an employee’s absence before resorting to dismissal. Employers must conduct a thorough investigation and ensure they have sufficient evidence of intent to abandon before terminating employment.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Asian Terminals, Inc. vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 158458, December 19, 2007