Cabañas vs Luzano Law Office

G.R. No. 225803 July 02, 2018

Facts:
Petitioner Sheryll Cabañas was employed as an Administrative Secretary for
respondent Abelardo G. Luzano Law Office on June 27, 2012. In June 2013, she received
a final warning notifying her that her performance failed to meet the performance
requirements of the position. On Sep. 01, 2013, Cabañas was allegedly asked to resign,
but she did not do so. On Sep. 19, 2013, Cabañas received another memorandum with
the subject “Notice of Termination” alleging commission of several infractions. She was
given up to the next day to explain. Hence, she explained to Atty. Luzano that the office
manager was meddling with her work. At 6pm of the same day, Atty. Luzano asked her
to execute a resignation letter but she refused. The following day, when she submitted
her explanation, Atty. Luzano informed her that the same day was her last day and that
her salary would just be deposited to her account. However, no salary was deposited.
On October 1, 2013, Cabanas filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and the payment of
her monetary claims against respondents. Petitioner contends that she was terminated
by respondents since she was not only asked to resign, but also to tum over all the files
assigned to her. Respondents contended that petitioner was not dismissed from work,
but she stopped reporting for work after submitting her written explanation to the charges
against her; hence, petitioner abandoned her work.
The Labor Arbiter (LA) held that Cabañas was illegally dismissed and ordered
respondents to pay her backwages, separation pay, service incentive leave pay and
13th month pay. The NLRC affirmed the decision of the LA. On petition for certiorari, the
CA annulled the decision of the NLRC.

Issue: Whether or not the Court of Appeals correctly held that petitioner was not illegally
dismissed, but petitioner abandoned her job.

Ruling:
No, the CA is not correct. For abandonment of work to fall under Article 282 (b) of
the Labor Code as gross and habitual neglect of duties, which is a just cause for
termination of employment, there must be concurrence of two elements. First, there
should be a failure of the employee to report for work without a valid or justifiable reason;
and, second, there should be a showing that the employee intended to sever the
employer-employee relationship, the second element being the more determinative
factor as manifested by overt acts.
In this case, petitioner's turnover of all the files in her custody was an overt act of
dismissal. First, it was petitioner who first stated that she was illegally terminated because
she was asked to turnover the files. Second, respondents did not mention that it was
petitioner who voluntarily turned over the files. Third, petitioner could have just left without
turning over all the files if she wanted to abandon her job. Fourth, the filing of an illegal
dismissal case is inconsistent with abandonment of work.