G.R. No. 104599 March 11, 1994
manifested by some overt acts. (uch intent we find dismally wanting in this case.
JON DE YSASI III, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (FORT! DI"ISION#, CEB CITY, a$% JON DE YSASI,respondents. YSASI,respondents.
Private respondent himself admitted being unsure of his sons plans of returning to wor!. 3he absence of petitioner from wor! was not without valid causes of which private respondent had full !nowledge. 4s to what convinced or led him to believe that petitioner was no longer longer returning returning to wor!, wor!, private private responde respondent nt neither neither e"plains e"plains nor substantiates by any reasonable basis how he arrived at such a conclusion.
F.B. Santiago, Nalus & Associates for petitioner. Ismael A. Serfino for private respondent. REGALADO,
J.:
Moreover, Moreover, private responde respondents nts claim claim of abandonme abandonment nt cannot cannot be given given creden credence ce as even even when when privat private e respon responden dentt suppos supposedl edly y 5became convinced5 that petitioner would no longer wor! at the farm, the latter continue continued d to perform perform services services directly re'uired re'uired by his position as farm administrator.
FACTS& Petitione Petitionerr was employed employed by his father, herein private private responden respondent, t, as farm administra administrator tor of Hacienda Hacienda Manucao in Hinigara Hinigaran, n, Negros Negros Occident Occidental. al. He suffered various ailments and was hospitalized on two separate occasions. He underwent underwent fistulectomy, fistulectomy, was confined confined for acute acute gastroent gastroenteriti eritis s and, thereafter, for infectious hepatitis. During the entire periods of petitioners illnesses, private respondent too! care care of his his medi medica call e"pe e"pens nses es and and peti petiti tion oner er cont contin inue ued d to rece receiv ive e compensation. However, without due notice, private respondent ceased to pay the latters latters salary. Petitioner Petitioner made oral and written demands demands for an e"plan e"planati ation on for the sudden sudden withh withhold oldin ing g of his salary salary.. #oth #oth demand demands, s, however, were not acted upon. Petitioner then filed an action with the N$%& for illegal dismissal with prayer for reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and payment of full bac! wages, thirteenth month pay, conse'uential, moral and e"emplary damages, as well as attorneys fees. (aid complaint for illegal dismissal was dismissed by the N$%&, holding that petitioner abandoned his wor!. On appeal, said decision was affirmed in toto. toto. ISSE'S& ). *ON petitione petitionerr De +sasi ))) aband abandoned oned his wor!. wor!. )). *ON respecti respective ve counsel counsel for both both parties parties have faithfull faithfully y observed observed their duty to encourage amicable settlement and avoid litigation. RLING& ). )n order order that that a findin finding g of abandon abandonme ment nt may ustl ustly y be made there there must be a concurrence of two elements, viz ..- /0 the failure to report for wor! or absence without valid or ustifiable reason, and 10 a clear intention intention to sever sever the employer2 employer2empl employee oyee relations relationship, hip, with the second second elemen elementt as the more more determ determina inativ tive e factor factor and being being
6urthermor 6urthermore, e, petitione petitioners rs numerous numerous re'uests re'uests for an e"planati e"planation on regarding regarding the stoppage stoppage of his salaries and benefits benefits,, as well as correspondence reporting his full recovery and readiness to go bac! to wor!, wor!, and, and, speci specific ficall ally, y, his filing filing of the compla complaint int for illega illegall dismissal are hardly the acts of one who has abandoned his wor!. )). )).
3he 3he cond conduc uctt of the the resp respec ecti tive ve coun counse sell of the the part partie ies s sore sorely ly disappoints the &ourt and invites reproof. #oth counsels may well be reminded that their ethical duty as lawyers to represent their clients with zeal goes beyond merely presenting their clients respective causes in court. )t is ust as much their responsibility to e"ert all reasonable efforts to smooth over legal conflicts, preferably out of court and espe especi cial ally ly in cons consid ider erat atio ion n of the the dire direct ct and and imme immedi diat ate e consanguineous ties between their clients. 3he useful function of a lawyer lawyer is not only to conduct conduct litigation litigation but to avoid avoid it whenever whenever possible by advising settlement or withholding suit. He should be a mediator for concord and a conciliator for compromise, rather than a virtuoso of technicality in the conduct of litigation. %ule /.78 of the &ode of Professio Professional nal %esponsi %esponsibilit bility y e"plicitl e"plicitly y provides that 5a0 lawyer shall encourage his client to avoid, end or settle the controversy if it will admit of a fair settlement.5 On this point, point, we find find that that both both counse counsels ls herein herein fell short short of what what was e"pected e"pected of them, them, despite despite their their avowed avowed duties duties as officers officers of the court.
