The Supreme Court ruled that Dominador B. Sanchez was illegally dismissed by Litex Glass and Aluminum Supply. The court emphasized that for abandonment to be valid, there must be a clear intention to sever the employment relationship, which was not proven in Sanchez’s case. The decision clarifies the burden of proof in illegal dismissal cases and sets a precedent for calculating separation pay based on substantiated employment dates.

Abandonment or Afterthought? Unraveling an Illegal Dismissal Claim

This case revolves around Dominador B. Sanchez’s complaint against Litex Glass and Aluminum Supply (Litex) and Ronald Ong-Sitco (Ong-Sitco) for illegal dismissal and non-payment of benefits. Sanchez claimed he was constructively dismissed after an altercation, while Litex argued he abandoned his job. The central legal question is whether Sanchez abandoned his employment or was illegally dismissed, and if illegally dismissed, what remedies are available to him.

Litex argued that Sanchez abandoned his employment by failing to report for work after receiving “show-cause” letters. However, the Court found that Sanchez made several attempts to clarify his employment status, which Ong-Sitco ignored. These attempts, coupled with the timing of the show-cause letters—sent after Sanchez filed the complaint—indicated that the letters were a mere afterthought. As the Supreme Court stated in Pentagon Steel Corporation v. Court of Appeals:

Filing of a complaint negates any intention of abandoning foregoing employment.

To prove abandonment, employers must demonstrate that the employee failed to report for work without valid reason and had a clear intention to sever the employment relationship. Mere failure to report for work after notice does not constitute abandonment. Litex failed to provide convincing evidence of Sanchez’s intent to abandon his job, leading the Court to conclude that he was illegally dismissed. The absence of a valid ground for dismissal further solidified the Court’s decision.

Article 279 of the Labor Code provides remedies for illegally dismissed employees, including reinstatement and backwages. However, reinstatement may not always be feasible, especially when strained relations exist between the employer and employee. As explained in Globe-Mackay Cable and Radio Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission:

When an atmosphere of antipathy and antagonism has already strained the relations between the employer and employee, separation pay is to be awarded as reinstatement can no longer be equitably effected.

In this case, the Court agreed with the Court of Appeals that the altercation between Sanchez and Ong-Sitco created a strained relationship, making separation pay an appropriate remedy. While separation pay was not initially sought in the complaint, Sanchez’s acceptance of the award implied his consent. However, a dispute arose concerning the computation of separation pay, specifically the commencement date of Sanchez’s employment. The Labor Arbiter and the Court of Appeals based their computation on 1994, relying on an SSS certification indicating contributions since 1996.

The Supreme Court, however, clarified that the burden of proof lies on the employee to substantiate their claim of employment. The Court emphasized that, as stated in L.C. Ordoñez Construction v. Nicdao, the burden of proof lies on the party who makes the allegation and must prove his claim by competent evidence. Sanchez failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove his employment with Litex or related companies before April 2002. The SSS certification only indicated SSS coverage starting in 1996, without specifying the employer. Consequently, the Court determined that the separation pay should be computed from April 2002, when Litex was officially registered.

In addition to separation pay and backwages, the Court upheld the award of attorney’s fees. As highlighted in Maglasang v. Northwestern University, Inc.:

An award of attorney’s fees is proper if one was forced to litigate and incur expenses to protect one’s rights and interest by reason of an unjustified act or omission on the part of the party from whom the award is sought.

Since Sanchez was compelled to litigate to protect his rights due to Litex’s illegal dismissal, the award of attorney’s fees was deemed appropriate.

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Dominador B. Sanchez was illegally dismissed or had abandoned his job, and if illegally dismissed, what remedies were available to him. The computation of separation pay was also a point of contention.
What is required to prove abandonment of employment?	To prove abandonment, the employer must show that the employee failed to report for work without valid reason and had a clear intention to sever the employment relationship. Mere failure to report for work after notice is insufficient.
What is the significance of the “show-cause” letters in this case?	The timing of the show-cause letters, sent after Sanchez filed a complaint, suggested they were a mere afterthought to cover up the illegal dismissal. This timing undermined Litex’s claim that Sanchez had abandoned his job.
When is separation pay awarded instead of reinstatement?	Separation pay is awarded when reinstatement is no longer feasible due to strained relations between the employer and employee. This often occurs when there has been significant conflict or animosity.
What evidence is needed to prove the date of employment for separation pay computation?	The employee must provide competent evidence, such as employment contracts, company records, or credible testimony, to substantiate their claimed date of employment. SSS contributions alone are insufficient to prove the employment start date.
Why was attorney’s fees awarded in this case?	Attorney’s fees were awarded because Sanchez was forced to litigate and incur expenses to protect his rights due to Litex’s unjustified act of illegal dismissal.
What was the final ruling of the Supreme Court?	The Supreme Court affirmed that Sanchez was illegally dismissed and entitled to separation pay, backwages, and attorney’s fees. However, the Court modified the computation of separation pay to be reckoned from April 2002, the date Litex was registered.
How does this case affect employers?	This case reminds employers of the importance of following proper procedures in termination and documenting employee infractions. It also emphasizes the burden of proof in illegal dismissal cases.
How does this case affect employees?	This case clarifies the rights of employees who are illegally dismissed and the remedies available to them. It also highlights the importance of maintaining accurate records of employment.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in Litex Glass and Aluminum Supply v. Sanchez serves as a crucial reminder of the legal standards for proving job abandonment and calculating separation pay. This case underscores the importance of documenting employment relationships and following due process in termination cases. This ruling reinforces employees’ rights against illegal dismissal and provides clarity on the evidentiary requirements for claiming benefits.

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: LITEX GLASS AND ALUMINUM SUPPLY vs. SANCHEZ, G.R. No. 198465, April 22, 2015