Constructive Dismissal_ 2016

7/26/2019 Constructive Dismissal_ 2016

1/9

"Constructive dismissal exists where there is cessation of work because continued

employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely, as an offer involving ademotion in rank and a diminution in pay." It is a "dismissal in disguise or an actamounting to dismissal but made to appear as if it were not." Constructive dismissal

may likewise exist if an "act of clear discrimination, insensibility, or disdain by an

employer becomes so unbearable on the part of the employee that it could foreclose anychoice by him except to forego his continued employment." "Constructive dismissal

exists when the employee involuntarily resigns due to the harsh, hostile, andunfavorable conditions set by the employer." "The test of constructive dismissal iswhether a reasonable person in the employees position would have felt compelled to

give up his position under the circumstances."

or a termination of employment on the ground of abandonment to be valid, theemployer "must prove, by substantial evidence, the concurrence of !the employees

failure to report for work for no valid reason and his categorical intention to discontinueemployment." In the present case, it appears that there is no intention to abandonemployment# respondents repeated absence were caused by $ngs oppressive treatment

and indifference which respondents simply grew tired of and wanted a break from.Indeed, an employee cannot be expected to work efficiently in an atmosphere where theemployers hostility pervades# certainly, it is too stressful and depressing % the threat of

immediate termination from work, if not aggression, is a heavy burden carried on theemployees shoulder. &espondents may have stayed away from work to cool off, but notnecessarily to abandon their employment. The fact remains that respondents returned

to work, but then their time cards had been torn to pieces. 'G.R. No. 185549August 7, 2013, VICENTE ANG,()TITI*+)&, vs. CEFERINO SAN JOAQIN,JR., AN! !IOS!A!O FERNAN!E",&)(*+-)+T.

/esides, as correctly held by the C$, the immediate filing of the labor case negates the

claim of abandonment. )mployees who immediately protest their dismissal, as by filinga labor case, cannot logically be said to have abandoned their employment.#$%g&'o()% S%)u(*t+ &- A*%- S%(/*)%s, I). /. &)t&o, G.R. No. 10940,

Ju+ 21, 2008, 559 SCRA 110, 118.

Case law holds that constructive dismissal occurs when there is cessation of workbecause continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely# whenthere is a demotion in rank or diminution in pay or both# or when a clear discrimination,

insensibility, or disdain by an employer becomes unbearable to the employee.&espondents sudden, arbitrary and unfounded adoption of the two0day work schemewhich greatly reduced petitioners salaries renders it liable for constructive dismissal.


2/9

&especting the appellate courts ruling that petitioners "simply disappeared" from their

work, hence, they are guilty of abandonment, the same does not lie.1avvphi1

$bsence must be accompanied by overt acts unerringly pointing to the fact that theemployee simply does not want to work anymore.A- t% u(-% o' (oo' to so6

t&t t%(% 6&s uust*'*%- (%'us& to go &) to 6o( (%sts o t% %o+%(.

x x x x

$bandonment is a matter of intention and cannot lightly be inferred or legally presumedfrom certain e2uivocal acts. or abandonment to exist, two re2uisites must concur3 first,the employee must have failed to report for work or must have been absent without valid

or 4ustifiable reason# and second, there must have been a clear intention on the part ofthe employee to sever the employer0employee relationship as manifested by some overtacts. The second element is the more determinative factor. $bandonment as a 4ust

ground for dismissal thus re2uires clear, willful, deliberate, and un4ustified refusal of theemployee to resume employment. 5ere absence or failure to report for work, even afternotice to return, is not tantamount to abandonment. ')mphasis and underscoring

supplied 'G.R. No. 177059, $&() 13, 2009, FE A ROSA, OFEIA VEE",CE: !O$INGO, JONA NATIVI!A! &- E!GAR !E EON, (etitioners, vs.

A$;ASSA!OR


3/9

8hile the decision to transfer employees to other areas of its operations forms part of

the well recogni9ed prerogatives of management, it must be stressed, however, that themanagerial prerogative to transfer personnel must not be exercised with grave abuse ofdiscretion, bearing in mind the basic elements of 4ustice and fair play. :aving the right

should not be confused with the manner in which that right is exercised. Thus it cannot

be used as a subterfuge by the employer to rid himself of an undesirable worker.

In the instant case, while petitioners transfer was valid, the manner by which

respondent un4ustifiably prevented him from returning to work on several occasionsruns counter to the claim of good faith on the part of respondent corporation. /yreporting for work, petitioner manifested his willingness to comply with the regulations

of the corporation and his desire to continue working for the latter. :owever, he wasbarred from entering the premises without any explanation. This is a clear manifestationof disdain and insensibility on the part of an employer towards a particular employeeand a veritable hallmark of constructive dismissal.

8hile the decision to transfer employees to other areas of its operations forms part ofthe well recogni9ed prerogatives of management, it must be stressed, however, that the

managerial prerogative to transfer personnel must not be exercised with grave abuse ofdiscretion, bearing in mind the basic elements of 4ustice and fair play. :aving the rightshould not be confused with the manner in which that right is exercised. Thus it cannot

be used as a subterfuge by the employer to rid himself of an undesirable worker. 'G.R.No. 171392, O)to%( 30, 200, R>ERTO S!AO, petitioner, vs.CI$EC< S:STE$ CONSTRCTION, INC. &- ENGR. RO!OFO S.

A;CA:,respondents.

Thus, an illegally dismissed employee is entitled to two reliefs3 backwages and

reinstatement. The two reliefs provided are separate and distinct. In instances wherereinstatement is no longer feasible because of strained relations between the employeeand the employer, separation pay is granted. In effect, an illegally dismissed employee is

entitled to either reinstatement, if viable, or separation pay if reinstatement is no longerviable, and backwages. 'Go-% A)% ;u*-%(s /. T&-% ,G.R. No. 187200, $&+ 5,2010, 20 SCRA 283, (%'%((*g to $&)&s%(o /. Sout%( I-ust(*& G&s%s

>***%s, G.R. No. 178524, J&u&(+ 30, 2009, 577 SCRA 500.

"The accepted doctrine is that separation pay may avail in lieu of reinstatement ifreinstatement is no longer practical or in the best interest of the parties. eparation payin lieu of reinstatement may likewise be awarded if the employee decides not to be

reinstated." x x x. #Go-% A)% ;u*-%(s /. T&-% ,G.R. No. 187200, $&+ 5,2010, 20 SCRA 283


4/9

6nder the doctrine of strained relations, the payment of separation pay is considered anacceptable alternative to reinstatement when the latter option is no longer desirable orviable. *n one hand, such payment liberates the employee from what could be a highly

oppressive work environment. *n the other hand, it releases the employer from thegrossly unpalatable obligation of maintaining in its employ a worker it could no longertrust. #I-. &t 289=290, )*t*g V%&s)o /. NRC, 525 >*. 749, 71 #200 &-

Co)&=Co& ;ott%(s >*s. I). /. !&*%, 499 >*. 491, 511 ?2005@

Cost(u)t*/% !*s*ss&

Constructive dismissal is an employers act amounting to dismissal but made to appearas if it were not % a dismissal in disguise. In most cases of constructive dismissal, the

employee is allowed to continue to work, but is simply reassigned, or demoted, or hispay diminished without a valid reason to do so.

Constructive dismissal does not always involve forthright dismissal or diminution inrank, compensation, benefit and privileges. There may be constructive dismissal if anact of clear discrimination, insensibility or disdain by an employer becomes sounbearable on the part or the employee that it could foreclose any choice by him exceptto forego his continued employment. #*. I-ust(*& S%)u(*t+ Ag%)+ Co(.

/s. Agu*&-o, G.R. No. 149974, Ju% 15, 2005.

Constructive dismissal exists where there is cessation of work because "continuedemployment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely, as an offer involving ademotion in rank or a diminution in pay" Go% T%%)o, I). /. Fo(%-o=Fo(%s,

438 >*. 75, 7 #2002 )*t*g >***% J&& A)t*/% C&(oCo(o(&t*o /. NRC, %t &., 253 >*. 149, 152, #1989.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jun2001/143204.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jun2001/143204.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/august2006/G.R.%20No.%20170087.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/149974.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/149974.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/august2006/G.R.%20No.%20170087.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/149974.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/149974.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jun2001/143204.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jun2001/143204.htm


5/9

Constructive dismissal may, likewise, exist if an act of clear discrimination, insensibility,

or disdain by an employer becomes so unbearable on the part of the employee that itcould foreclose any choice by him except to forego his continued employment. *. 295, 30 #2001.

In cases of a transfer of an employee, the rule is settled that the employer is chargedwith the burden of proving that its conduct and action are for valid and legitimategrounds such as genuine business necessity and that the transfer is not unreasonable,

inconvenient or pre4udicial to the employee. If the employer cannot overcome thisburden of proof, the employees transfer shall be tantamount to unlawful constructivedismissal. B%stot >&(&)%ut*)&s, I). /. S&&*%go, 518 >*. 41, 51

#200.

$lthough there is no reduction of the salary of petitioner, constructive dismissal is still

present because continued employment of petitioner is rendered, at the very least,unreasonable. $%-*o& /s. Cou(t o' A%&s, 497 SCRA 34.

(reventive suspension which last beyond the maximum period allowed by the

Implementing &ules amounts to constructive dismissal. $&(*)&u $**gCoo(&t*o /s. !%)o(*o, 487 SCRA 182.

Constructive dismissal exists as an involuntary resignation on the part of the employeedue to the harsh, hostile and unfavorable conditions set by the employer0it is an actamounting to dismissl but made to appear as if it were not0a dismissal in disguise.

Agu*&( /s. ;u(g%( $&)*%


6/9

demotion in rank or a diminution in pay"and other benefits. $ptly called a dismissal in

disguise or an act amounting to dismissal but made to appear as if it werenot, constructive dismissal may, likewise, exist if an act of clear discrimination,insensibility, or disdain by an employer becomes so unbearable on the part of the

employee that it could foreclose any choice by him except to forego his continued

employment. In cases of a transfer of an employee, the rule is settled that the employeris charged with the burden of proving that its conduct and action are for valid and

legitimate grounds such as genuine business necessity and that the transfer is notunreasonable, inconvenient or pre4udicial to the employee. If the employer cannotovercome this burden of proof, the employees transfer shall be tantamount to unlawful

constructive dismissal. Jo&t& V. $o(&%s /s. o(t T%(*&,I)., G.R. No. 174208, J&u&(+ 25, 2011.

In constructive dismissal cases, the employer has the burden of proving that the transfer

of an employee is for 4ust or valid ground, such as genuine business necessity. Theemployer must demonstrate that the transfer is not unreasonable, inconvenient, or

pre4udicial to the employee and that the transfer does not involve a demotion in rank ora employees salary and other benefits. ;If the employer fails to overcome this burden ofproof, the employees transfer is tantamount to unlawful constructive dismissal.< !5erck

harp and -ohme '(hilippines v. &obles, =.&. +o. 1>?@A?, +ovember B@, BAA(etitioners failed to satisfy the burden of proving that the transfer was based on 4ust orvalid ground. (etitioners bare assertions of imminent threat from the respondents are

mere accusations which are not substantiated by any proof. The upreme Court agreedwith the Court of $ppeals in ruling that the transfer of respondents amounted to ademotion. Ju*%Ds ;&%so &-o( E-g&( R%+%s /s.


7/9

prevented from entering the property. This was even corroborated by the affidavits of

iarot and 5endo9a which were made part of the records of this case. $&. $%*ss& A.G&&g /s. Ju*& $&&suu*, G.R. No. 174173, $&() 7, 2012.

ln labor cases, strict adherence with the technical rules is not re2uired. This liberalpolicy, however. should still conform with the rudiments of e2uitable principles of law.or instance, belated submission of evidence may only be allowed if the delay isade2uately 4ustified and the evidence is clearly material to establish the pattyDs cause.

The rule is that it is within the ambit of the employers prerogative to transfer anemployee for valid reasons and according to the re2uirement of its business, providedthat the transfer does not result in demotion in rank or diminution of salary, benefitsand other privileges. This Court has always considered the managements prerogative totransfer its employees in pursuit of its legitimate interests. /ut this prerogative shouldbe exercised without grave abuse of discretion and with due regard to the basic elements

of 4ustice and fair play, such that if there is a showing that the transfer was unnecessaryor inconvenient and pre4udicial to the employee, it cannot be upheld.

:ere, while we find that the transfer of Cagalawan neither entails any demotion in ranksince he did not have tenurial security over the position of head of the disconnectioncrew, nor result to diminution in pay as this was not sufficiently proven by him,5*&)C* IIs evidence is nevertheless not enough to show that said transfer wasre2uired by the exigency of the electric cooperatives business interest. imply stated,the evidence sought to be admitted by 5*&)C* II is not substantial to prove thatthere was a genuine business urgency that necessitated the transfer.

8hen there is doubt between the evidence submitted by the employer and thatsubmitted by the employee, the scales of 4ustice must be tilted in favor of the employee.This is consistent with the rule that an employers cause could only succeed on thestrength of its own evidence and not on the weakness of the employees evidence. Thus,5*&)C* II cannot rely on the weakness of *rti9s certification in order to give morecredit to its own evidence. elf0serving and unsubstantiated declarations are notsufficient where the 2uantum of evidence re2uired to establish a fact is substantialevidence, described as more than a mere scintilla. ;The evidence must be real andsubstantial, and not merely apparent.< 5*&)C* II has miserably failed to dischargethe onus of proving the validity of Cagalawans transfer. $*s&*s O(*%t& IIE%)t(*) S%(/*)% Coo%(&t*/% #$ORESCO II /s. V*(g**o $. C&g&&6&. G.R.

No. 175170,S%t%%( 5, 2012

Cost(u)t*/% -*s*ss&exists when the resignation on title part of the employee was

involuntary due to the harsh, hostile and unfavorable conditions set by the employer.

The test for constructive dismissal is whether a reasonable person in the employeeDs

position would feel compelled to give up his employment under the prevailing

circumstances. 8ith the decision of the private respondent corporation to transfer and


8/9

to thereafter placed !sic her on floating status, petitioner felt that she was being

discriminated and this perception compelled her to resign. It is clear from her

resignation letter that petitioner felt oppressed by the situation created by the private

respondent corporation, and this forced her to surrender her position. #ICT

$AJRHETING SERVICES, INC. #NOB HNOBN AS S:HES $ARHETING

SERVICES, INC., >ETITIONER, VS. $ARI>ON!ENT,G.R. No. 202090, S%t%%( 09, 2015

In uperstar ecurity $gency, Inc. andEor Col. $ndrada v. +7&C, the Court ruled that

placing an employee on temporary "off0detail" is not e2uivalent to dismissal provided

that such temporary inactivity should continue only for a period of six '? months. In

security agency parlance, being placed "off0detail" or on "floating status" means "waiting

to be posted." In alvalo9a v. +7&C, the Court further explained the nature of the

"floating status," to wit3

Temporary "off0detail" or "floating status" is the period of time when security guards arein between assignments or when they are made to wait after being relieved from a

previous post until they are transferred to a new one. It takes place when the security

agencyDs clients decide not to renew their contracts with the agency, resulting in a

situation where the available posts under its existing contracts are less than the number

of guards in its roster. It also happens in instances where contracts for security services

stipulate that the client may re2uest the agency for the replacement of the guards

assigned to it even for want of cause, such that the replaced security guard may be

placed on temporary "off0detail" if there are no available posts under the agencyDs

existing contracts. -uring such time, the security guard does not receive any salary or

any financial assistance provided by law. It does not constitute a dismissal, as theassignments primarily depend on the contracts entered into by the security agencies

with third parties, so long as such status does not continue beyond a reasonable

time.B% su) & 'o&t*g st&tus &sts 'o( o(% t& s* # ots, t%

%o+%% &+ % )os*-%(%- to &/% %% )ost(u)t*/%+

-*s*ss%-.')mphasis supplied

&elative thereto, constructive dismissal exists when an act of clear discrimination,

insensibility, or disdain, on the part of the employer has become so unbearable as to

leave an employee with no choice but to forego continued employment,or when there is

cessation of work because continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable,

or unlikely, as an offer involving a demotion in rank and a diminution in pay. 'FIC)+T)

C. T$T)7, ()TITI*+)&, F. G7( I+F)TI=$TI*+ )C6&ITH $=)+CH, I+C., G*)

76I . ($5I+T6$+, $+-E*& ($*7* C. T6&+*, &)(*+-)+T, =.&. +o.

BA?B, ebruary B@, BA1@


9/9

Constructive Dismissal_ 2016

Documents

Transcript of Constructive Dismissal_ 2016