MARIO B. DIMAGAN vs. Dacworks United (G.R. No.

191053, November 28, 2011)

Abandonment is the deliberate and unjustified refusal of an employee to r
esume his employment. To constitute abandonment of work, two elements must concu
r: (1) the employee must have failed to report for work or must have been absent
without valid or justifiable reason; and (2) there must have been a clear intent
ion on the part of the employee to sever the employer-employee relationship mani
fested by some overt act. The employer bears the burden of proof to show the deli
berate and unjustified refusal of the employee to resume his employment without
any intention of returning.
In the case of Hodieng Concrete Products, Inc. v. Emilia30, citing Samar
ca v. Arc-Men Industries, Inc., the Court has ruled thus:
x x x. Absence must be accompanied by overt acts unerringly pointing to
the fact that the employee simply does not want to work anymore. And the burden
of proof to show that there was unjustified refusal to go back to work rests on
the employer.
x x x
Abandonment is a matter of intention and cannot lightly be presumed from
certain equivocal acts. To constitute abandonment, there must be clear proof o
f deliberate and unjustified intent to sever the employer-employee relationship.
Clearly, the operative act is still the employee s ultimate act of putting an end
to his employment.
Settled is the rule that mere absence or failure to report for work is n
ot tantamount to abandonment of work. x x x. (Emphasis supplied)