FACTS:

The case involves a claim of illegal dismissal filed by the petitioners, Efren Santos Jr. and Jeramil Salmasan, against the respondents, King Chef, Marites Ang, and Joey Delos Santos. The petitioners were employed as cooks at King Chef, a Chinese restaurant owned by Ang and managed by Delos Santos. On December 25, 2011, the petitioners rendered only a half-day work without prior authorization, and Salmasan did not report at all. The petitioners claimed that they were dismissed from employment as they were told by their chief cook that they were already terminated when they tried to report for work. They then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, underpayment of salaries, non-payment of salaries and thirteenth month pay, damages, and attorney's fees. The respondents, on the other hand, denied that the petitioners were dismissed and argued that they violated a memorandum prohibiting absences on certain dates. They claimed that the petitioners went on absence without leave (AWOL) for the rest of the Christmas season. The Labor Arbiter initially ruled in favor of the petitioners and granted their claim for illegal dismissal. However, upon appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) modified the decision and found that there was no dismissal in the first place. The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC's ruling, stating that the petitioners failed to establish through substantial evidence that they were indeed dismissed. Hence, this Petition for Review on Certiorari was filed before the Supreme Court.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not petitioners were illegally dismissed.

RULING:

1. The petitioners were not illegally dismissed. The Court of Appeals upheld the finding of the National Labor Relations Commission that there was no dismissal in the first place. Since the petitioners were unable to prove that they were indeed terminated, the complaint for illegal dismissal cannot be sustained. Respondents presented evidence that after the petitioners failed to report for work on December 25, 2011, they continued to be absent for the rest of the Christmas season.

PRINCIPLES:

• The principle of substantial evidence - Before the respondents must bear the burden of proving that the dismissal was legal, the petitioners must first establish by substantial evidence that they were dismissed. If there is no dismissal, there can be no question as to the legality or illegality thereof.

• The principle of abandonment of work - If an employee is absent without valid reason, and such absence is considered to be abandonment of work, the employer may not be held liable for illegal dismissal.