G.R. No. 94291 November 9, 1990
DAGUPAN BUS COMPANY, INC., petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (Third Division) and LEONITO T. MARASIGAN, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Leonito T. Marasigan, a driver for petitioner Dagupan Bus Company since 1981, stopped working in September 1986 as his assigned bus was under repair. Upon reporting back, he was told the bus was being used by another company due to a strike and was advised to return after the strike ended. After the strike concluded, Marasigan repeatedly attempted to resume work but was given vague instructions to wait, go on vacation, or return later. These indefinite postponements led him to believe he had been dismissed, prompting him to file a complaint for illegal dismissal and monetary claims over a year later.
The petitioner company defended its action by asserting that Marasigan had abandoned his job for fourteen months. It claimed to have sent notices for him to report back, which were ignored, leading to his termination for unauthorized absences. The company further alleged Marasigan had a history of habitual absenteeism. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Marasigan, awarding separation pay due to strained relations, and disallowed other monetary claims except attorney’s fees. The NLRC affirmed this decision in toto.

ISSUE

Whether the National Labor Relations Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the Labor Arbiter’s finding that Leonito T. Marasigan was illegally dismissed and did not abandon his employment.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no merit in the petitioner’s claims. The Court emphasized that the issues raised were primarily factual, and absent any showing that the NLRC’s findings were tainted with arbitrariness or devoid of evidentiary basis, such findings are binding. The Court is not a trier of facts and defers to administrative bodies that have direct opportunity to examine evidence and witness credibility.
The legal logic centers on the definition and proof of abandonment. The Court upheld the NLRC’s conclusion that Marasigan did not abandon his work. His persistent attempts to return to work, which were met with evasive responses from management, were fundamentally inconsistent with an intention to abandon. Abandonment requires a clear, deliberate intent to sever the employment relationship, coupled with an overt act demonstrating that intent. Mere absence, even if prolonged, is insufficient. Marasigan’s subsequent filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal actively negated any claim of abandonment.
The Court also found the company’s conduct lacking in candor and fairness. It noted that the alleged notices were sent to an old address despite knowledge of a new one, and the company’s failure to clearly inform Marasigan of his termination left him in a state of uncertain expectation. The constitutional policy of protecting labor mandates that doubts be resolved in favor of the worker, especially when, as here, he acts without the collective strength of a union. The dismissal was therefore illegal, and the award of separation pay in lieu of reinstatement was proper given the strained relations between the parties.