Abandonment vs Illegal Dismissal: Proving the Fact of Termination

In every illegal dismissal case, a critical threshold question must first be answered: was the employee actually dismissed? The Supreme Court, in Mehitabel, Inc. v. Alcuizar (G.R. Nos. 228701-02, December 13, 2017), clarifies that the burden of proving the fact of dismissal rests on the employee. If the employee cannot show positive and overt acts of termination by the employer, the case fails—even if the employee filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.

The Facts of the Case

Jufhel Alcuizar was hired as Purchasing Manager by Mehitabel, Inc., a furniture manufacturer, on August 31, 2010. While his early performance was satisfactory, complaints about his work began in March 2011. His supervisor, Rossana Arcenas, repeatedly counselled him to improve, warning that disciplinary proceedings might follow.

On August 10, 2011, Alcuizar left the company premises. The company's human resource officer and security guard both attested that Alcuizar told them he was quitting his job and had surrendered his company phone and other properties. The company immediately sent a Return to Work order via registered mail, informing him that leaving without permission violated its Code of Conduct and requiring him to report back and submit a written explanation. Alcuizar received the letter but neither returned nor explained.

Instead, Alcuizar filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, claiming he was verbally told on August 10 that his services were no longer needed and that he was being replaced. He pointed to newspaper and online advertisements for a Purchasing Manager vacancy as proof of his replacement.

The Issue

The central issue was whether Alcuizar was illegally dismissed or whether he abandoned his employment. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint, but the NLRC and Court of Appeals (CA) reached different conclusions. The CA ruled Alcuizar was illegally dismissed, applying Article 4 of the Labor Code, which requires doubts to be resolved in favor of labor. The Supreme Court reversed the CA.

The Ruling: Proving the Fact of Dismissal

The Supreme Court emphasized the Latin maxim ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat—the burden of proof is on the one who declares, not on one who denies. In illegal dismissal cases, the employee must first establish the fact of dismissal through positive and overt acts of the employer indicating an intention to dismiss. Only then does the burden shift to the employer to prove the dismissal was legal.

The Court found that Alcuizar's claim of dismissal was a bare, self-serving allegation. His assertion that he was told to turn over his work to a new hire was uncorroborated. The job advertisements did not help his case—the Court found credible the employer's explanation that the ads were an inadvertent error, noting that the qualifications listed were nearly identical to an earlier ad for a Purchasing Officer position.

Abandonment: The Two Elements

The Court ruled that Alcuizar actually abandoned his employment. Abandonment requires two elements: (1) the employee's failure to report for work or absence without valid or justifiable reason, and (2) a clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship.

Both elements were present. Alcuizar left without permission and declared he was quitting. The company sent a Return to Work order, which he ignored—an act signifying his intention to sever the relationship. The Court found the sworn statements of the human resource officer and security guard credible, including the security guard's logbook entry noting Alcuizar's declaration.

Significantly, the Court rejected the argument that filing an illegal dismissal complaint automatically negates abandonment. Filing a complaint is not the sole indicator of intent; all surrounding circumstances must be considered.

Practical Takeaways

• The employee bears the initial burden. In an illegal dismissal case, the employee must first prove the fact of dismissal through positive and overt acts by the employer. A mere allegation is insufficient.
• Filing a complaint is not enough. Filing an illegal dismissal complaint does not, by itself, prove dismissal or negate abandonment. Courts look at all circumstances.
• A Return to Work order is powerful evidence. An employer's directive to report back to work, sent after an employee's unexplained absence, strongly suggests the employer never intended to dismiss the employee.
• Abandonment requires proof of intent. Employers must show both unjustified absence and a clear intention to sever the employment relationship, such as declarations of quitting or surrender of company property.
• Document everything. Written notices, logbook entries, and sworn statements of witnesses are crucial in establishing whether there was a dismissal or an abandonment.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.