G.R. No. 163061 ; June 26, 2013
ALFONSO L. FIANZA, Petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (SECOND DIVISION), BINGA HYDROELECTRIC PLANT, INC., ANTHONY C. ESCOLAR, ROLAND M. LAUTCHANG, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Alfonso Fianza was employed as a Social Acceptance Officer by respondent Binga Hydroelectric Plant, Inc. on June 3, 1997, pursuant to a memorandum issued by the company president. In February 1999, he did not receive his salary and was advised not to report for work pending clarification of his status. Despite follow-ups and being told to report back, the new management committee required concurrence on his reappointment and an assessment of the necessity of his services. After months of inaction from management, Fianza filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.
The Labor Arbiter ruled in Fianza’s favor, finding an employer-employee relationship and declaring his dismissal illegal. The NLRC reversed this decision, holding that no such relationship was sufficiently established, citing his probationary status, direct hiring, lack of a daily time record, and the characterization of his pay as “retainer’s fees.” The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC’s ruling.

ISSUE

The core issues are whether Fianza abandoned his work and whether he was a regular employee.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversing the CA and NLRC and reinstating the Labor Arbiter’s decision. On the issue of abandonment, the Court held that the requisites were absent. Abandonment requires a deliberate and unjustified refusal to resume work, clearly shown by overt acts indicating an intent to sever the employment relationship. Here, Fianza’s actions—following up on his status and expressing willingness to return—negated any claim of abandonment. The company failed to prove the essential element of a clear intention to sever the relationship.
Regarding his employment status, the Court found Fianza to be a regular employee. The determination hinges on the “four-fold test” and the nature of the activities performed. His duties as a Social Acceptance Officer, involving community relations and public affairs, were clearly necessary and desirable to the company’s main business of power generation. His direct hiring by the president and the fixed monthly salary indicated employer control. The probationary label in his appointment and the alleged irregularities in hiring (bypassing procedures, lack of a DTR) do not override the factual reality of his engagement in necessary company functions. Consequently, he was illegally dismissed without just or authorized cause and without due process.