BREW MASTER INTERNATIONAL INC. vs.

NAFLU That individual complainant's dismissal was done without just cause; that if was not sufficiently
G.R. No. 119243 April 17, 1997D established that individual complainant's absence from April 19, 1993 to June 16, 1993 are
unjustified; that the penalty of dismissal for such violation is too severe; that in imposing such
DOCTRINE: penalty, respondent should have taken into consideration complainant's length of service and as a
first offender, a penalty less punitive will suffice such as suspension for a define period.
While the employer is not precluded from prescribing rules and regulations to govern the conduct of
his employees, these rules and their implementation must be fair, just and reasonable. It must be Respondent's Contention
underscored that no less than our Constitution looks with compassion on the workingman and
protects his rights not only under a general statement of a state policy( Section 18, Article II), but That individual complainant was dismissed for cause allowed by the company Rules and Regulations
under the Article on Social Justice and Human Rights(Section 3, Article XIII), thus placing labor and the Labor Code; that the act of complainant in absenting from work for one (1) month without
contracts on a higher plane and with greater safeguards. Verily, relations between capital and labor official leave is deleterious to the business of respondent; that it will result to stoppage of
are not merely contractual. They are impressed with public interest and labor contracts must, production which will not only destructive to respondent's interests but also to the interest of its
perforce, yield to the common good. employees in general; that the dissmisal of complainant from the service is legal.

Background of the facts Labor Arbiter: DISMISSED

Private respondent National Federation of Labor Unions (NAFLU), a co-complainant in the labor  Ruled that complainant's termination from his employment was "legal, the same with just or
case, is a labor union of which complainant is a member. authorized cause and due process."
 Citing the principle of managerial control, which recognizes the employer's prerogative to
FACTS prescribe reasonable rules and regulations to govern the conduct of his employees. The
 Complainant was first employed by respondent on 16 September 1991 as route helper with principle allows the imposition of disciplinary measures which are necessary for the
the latest daily wage of P119.00. efficiency of both the employer and the employees. In complainant's case, he persisted in
 From 19 April 1993 up to 19 May 1993, for a period of 1 month, complainant went on not reporting for work until 16 June 1993 notwithstanding his receipt of the memorandum
absent without permission (AWOP). requiring him to explain his absence without approval.
 On 20 May 1993, respondent thru Mr. Rodolfo Valentin, sent a Memo to complainant,that
NLRC: MODIFIED the Labor Arbiter's decision and held that complainant's dismissal was invalid,
the latter need to explain in writing within 24 hours from receipt of memo why no
directing the reinstatement of complainant-appellant to his former position without loss of seniority
disciplinary action should be taken against the complainant.
rights and other benefits, but without backwages.
 In answer to the aforesaid memo, complainant explained that he did not report for work for
1 month due to a grave family problem as his wife deserted him and nobody was there to OSG: recommended complainant's reinstatement, which would be more harmonious to the
look after his children. dictates of social justice and equity. It further emphasized that the reinstatement should not be
 Finding said explanation unsatisfactory, on 16 June 1993, respondent thru its Sales Manager, considered a condonation of complainant's irresponsible behavior, rather, it must be viewed as a
Mr. Henry A. Chongco issued a Notice of Termination mitigation of the severity of the penalty of dismissal. Accordingly, it prays that this petition be
dismissed.
Complainant's Contention:
ISSUE: no less than our Constitution looks with compassion on the workingman and protects his rights not
W/N Estrada's dismissal from work is valid, as the company rules provide the provisions for such only under a general statement of a state policy( Section 18, Article II), but under the Article on
dismissal Social Justice and Human Rights(Section 3, Article XIII), thus placing labor contracts on a higher
plane and with greater safeguards. Verily, relations between capital and labor are not merely
RULING:NO. contractual. They are impressed with public interest and labor contracts must, perforce, yield to
the common good.
Abandonment
Petitioner's finding that complainant was guilty of abandonment is misplaced. Abandonment as a In this light, petitioner's dismissal was illegal. This is not to say that his absence should go
just and valid ground for dismissal requires the deliberate, unjustified refusal of the employee to unpunished, as impliedly noted by the NLRC in declining to award back wages . In the absence of the
resume his employment. Two elements must then be satisfied: appropriate offense which defines complainant's infraction in the company's Rules and Regulations,
equity dictates that a penalty commensurate to the infraction be imposed.
(1) the failure to report for work or absence without valid or justifiable reason; and

(2) a clear intention to sever the employer-employee relation.

The second element is the more determinative factor and must be evinced by overt acts.

Burden of Proof
Likewise, the burden of proof is on the employer to show the employee's clear and deliberate intent
to discontinue his employment without any intention of returning, mere absence is not sufficient.

Application
These elements are not present here. First, as held above, complainant's absence was justified
under the circumstances. As to the second requisite, we are not convinced that complainant ever
intended to sever the employer-employee relationship. Complainant immediately complied with the
memo requiring him to explain his absence, and upon knowledge of his termination, immediately
sued for illegal dismissal. These plainly refuted any claim that he was no longer interested in
returning to work. Without doubt, the intention is lacking.

Moreover, petitioner failed to discharge the burden of proof that complainant was guilty of
abandonment. No evidence other than complainant's letter explaining his absence was presented.
Needless to state, the letter did not indicate, in the least, that complainant was no longer interested
in returning to work. On the contrary, complainant sought petitioner's understanding. In declaring
him guilty of abandonment, petitioner merely relied on its Rules and Regulations which limited its
application to a six-day continuous absence, contrary to the purpose of the law. While the employer
is not precluded from prescribing rules and regulations to govern the conduct of his employees,
these rules and their implementation must be fair, just and reasonable. It must be underscored that