MALLO VS SOUTHEAST ASIAN COLLEGE

Facts:
Melvin Mallo was hired as probationary full time faculty member of respondent
Southeast Asian College (SACI) College of Nursing and Midwifery with the rank
of Assistant Professor C for the 2nd Semester of 2007-2008. Thereafter, his
employment was renewed for the succeeding semesters until the Summer
Semester of 2010-2011.
Mallo inquired thereafter about his teaching load for the 1 st Semester of the next
school year, but SACI only responded that teaching assignments for the
semester were yet to be given.
Thereafter, he learned from a co-professor that faculty meetings were conducted
already, whereby teaching loads were distributed to professors.
Upon learning of this, he went to the Dean of the College of Nursing, demanding
that he be given his corresponding teaching load. However, the Dean only said
that they were not under any obligation to give teaching loads to the petitioner.
Thus, he was prompted to file a complaint for unfair labor practice, illegal
dismissal, underpayment of salary, damages, and attorneys fees against SACI
and its Executive President Edita Enatsu.
Defense of SACI:
o Denied dismissing Mallo
o As early as April 2011 and as evidence by the Deans letter, Mallo had
already been given his teaching load for SY 2011-2012
o Unfortunately, Mallo twice failed the qualifying test required for the job
o Despite this, they gave him another teaching load, which he accepted
o A day before he was to start on this position, he asked for a change in
schedule, which was denied for logistical reasons
o He ended up not reporting for work since such schedule conflicted with
his new employment and he was never heard from again until he
instituted the instant case
LA ruling:
o Mallo was illegally dismissed
o His probationary employment had lapsed into a permanent one after
having completed 3 consecutive years of satisfactory service and having
possessed the required degrees pursuant to the Manual of Regulations
for Private Schools
o Ordered SACI to pay him backwages, separation pay in lieu of
reinstatement, SIL pay, 13th month pay, and attorneys fees
NLRC ruling:
o Affirmed the LA
o Did not give credence to SACIs claim that Mallo did not teach during the
1st Semester of 2008-2009 and thus did not complete the required
semesters to attain the status of regular employee
o Found that during this period, SACI contributed SSS premiums for Mallo,
which is inconsistent with the claim that he was not teaching during such
time
o Rejected the claim that Mallos performance was unsatisfactory; the
repeated hiring of Mallo betrays this position

No abandonment in this case since there was no evidence hat he clearly

intended to sever his employment with respondents
o Reduced the award for 13th month pay but affirmed the other awards
CA ruling:
o Modified the NLRC ruling
o Mallo abandoned his job and is not entitled to backwages, separation pay,
and attorneys fees
o While he had attained the status of regular employee, no evidence was
presented to show that the respondents terminate his employment
o SACI gave Mallo a teaching load for the 1st Semester of 2011-2012, which
he even accepted
o The totality of Mallos acts (not attending classes, refusal to work,
obtaining new employment) clearly constituted abandonment on his part
o Retained the awards of SIL pay and 13 th month pay rendered by the
NLRC
Aggrieved by the decision, Mallo elevated the case to the SC.
o

Issue:
WoN the CA erred in ruling that there was no illegal dismissal and that Mallo
abandoned his job- NO with regard to illegal dismissal finding, YES with
regard to abandonment finding.
o Mallo: He was illegally dismissed because SACI failed to give him any
teaching load for the 1st Semester of 2011-2012.
o SACI: Maintain that they promptly gave Mallo his teaching assignment
and that he even initially accepted the same, but such assignment was
eventually turned down due to a conflict in schedule with his new
employment in another school.
o The Court agrees that Mallo was not illegally dismissed. The Cout gave
credence to the claim of SACI that they had in fact given Mallo his
teaching assignment for the SY 2011-2012.
o However, the Court does not find that there was abandonment on the part
of Mallo. For an employee to be considered to have abandoned his
employment, there must be a clear and deliberate intent to discontinue
ones employment without any intention of returning. 2 elements must
concur:
Failure to report for work or absence without valid or justifiable
reason
A clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship (this
is the more determinative factor and must be manifested by overt
acts)
o In this case, records are bereft of any indication that Mallo's absence from
work was deliberate, unjustified, and with a clear intent to sever his
employment relationship with SACI. While respondents claim to have
given Mallo a new assignment after failing the qualifying tests for his initial
assignment, which the latter initially accepted, but eventually declined,
there is no proof that Mallo was informed of such assignment.
o Mallo's filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal, coupled with his prior acts
of actively inquiring about his teaching load, negate any intention on his
part to sever his employment.

o Also, it is simply absurd for Mallo to provide continuous service to SACI

for more than three 3 years in order to attain a regular status, only to
leave his job without any justifiable reason and, thereafter, file a case in
an attempt to recover the same.