FUNCTIONAL INC. v SAMUEL C.

GRANFIL
G.R. No.176377, November 16, 2011
Ponente: Perez, J.
Termination of Employment: General Principles Burden of Proof; Abandonment
FACTS:
1. Granfil was a photocopying machine operator hired by petitioner FI. He was stationed at the
National Bookstore (NBS) SM Megamall which rented a photocopying machine from FI.
2. Granfil had a customer who asked him to reproduced flyers.
3. NBS Guard Bonnel Dechavez saw the customer handing money to Granfil. About to leave NBS,
the customer was asked by Dechavez if he has paid. In reply, the customer said yes and, when
asked for the receipt, pointed to Granfil.
4. Dechavez filed an incident report to the NBS manager. Based on this, Granfil was dismissed by FI.
5. Granfil filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, unpaid 13 th month pay, damages and attys fees.
6. FI averred that Granfil was supposed to be just transferred to a different assignment but while
waiting for the same, he has to report as an emergency reliever to other key operators. This was
misconstrued by Granfil who then abandoned his work.
7. LA ruled for FI because Granfil failed to prove with substantial evidence overt acts of termination
by FI. The NLRC affirmed LA decision. CA reversed NLRC decision, ordering Granfils
reinstatement and payment of backwages, etc.
o Granfil: the money was a tip given by the customer; he was not accorded the right to
explain by FI manager Freddie Tenorio.
o FI: To transfer Granfil to another assignment and to make him act as a reliever while his
assignment is being finalized is a prerogative of FI; Granfil is guilty of insubordination;
there is no illegal dismissal since Granfil abandoned his employment.
ISSUE & RATIO.
1. WON the FI illegally dismissed Granfil NO. Abandonment of work by Granfil was not
proven by FI.
In illegal dismissal cases, the burden of proof is upon the employer to show that the
termination is for a just and valid cause.
o This burden is not discharged neither by merely alleging that an employer did not
dismiss the employee nor by claiming that the latter abandoned his work.
o FI gave no evidence to prove Granfils supposed abandonment.
Abandonment, a matter of intention, cannot be inferred or presumed from equivocal acts. It
contemplates deliberate, unjustified refusal of the employee to resume his employment,
without any intention of returning.
o Mere absence or failure to report to work is not tantamount to abandonment.
o Filing of illegal dismissal case is inconsistent with the idea of abandonment
Thus, two elements must concur to prove abandonment, the burden of which resting on
the employer:
o failure to report for work or absence without valid or justifiable reason
o a clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship, with the second
element as the more determinative factor and being manifested by some overt acts.
Note: The court mentioned in one line that the employer has the legal duty to observe due
process. No elaboration therefor was made.