Constructive dismissal
The test of constructive dismissal is whether a reasonable person in the employee’s position would have felt compelled to give up his job under the circumstances.
Respondents Randy B. Miñoza and Alaine S. Bandalan, filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with money claims against petitioners John L.Borja and Aubrey L. Borja/ Dong Juan.
The Labor Arbiter (LA) found respondents to have been illegally and constructively dismissed and ordered petitioners to pay them P169,077.20 for backwages, separation pay, 13th month pay, service incentive leave pay, moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees.
The LA gave more credence to respondents’ version that they were placed in a difficult situation and left with no choice but to leave their employment on April 7 and 8, 2011. They were brought to another restaurant on April 5, 2011 only to be handed the memoranda asking them to justify their unexplained absences despite evidence showing that they reported for work at the restaurant on said day.
Thereat, they first encountered Mark Opura, who they claimed was a dubious and intimidating person. Likewise, they were singled out to undergo an on-the-spot drug test, which yielded negative results. They decided to forego their employment when they were threatened by Opura’s group. Thus, the LA concluded that respondents were constructively dismissed.
The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed and set aside the LA decision. The Court of Appeals (CA) set aside the NLRC decision and reinstated that of the LA’s. Did the CA err?
Ruling: Yes.
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. The test of constructive dismissal is whether a reasonable person in the employee’s position would have felt compelled to give up his job under the circumstances.
After a punctilious examination of this case, the Court finds that respondents--as correctly concluded by the NLRC--were not constructively dismissed, in view of the glaring dearth of evidence to corroborate the same. Despite their allegations, respondents failed to prove through substantial evidence that they were discriminated against, or that working at the restaurant had become so unbearable that they were left without any choice but to relinquish their employment. Neither were they able to prove that there was a demotion in rank or a diminution in pay such that they were forced to give up their work.
In its reversed decision, the NLRC pointed out that respondents claimed to have been constructively dismissed when petitioners called several meetings where they inquired about respondents’ absences, for which the latter were issued separate memoranda; they were subjected to an on-the-spot drug test; they were barred entry into the restaurant; and they were threatened and intimidated by the presence of Opura, a stranger, in the restaurant. The foregoing circumstances, however, do not constitute grounds amounting to constructive dismissal.
As the NLRC correctly opined, petitioners were validly exercising their management prerogative when they called meetings to investigate respondents’ absences, gave them separate memoranda seeking explanation, and conducted an on-the-spot drug test on its employees, including respondents.
Likewise, respondents failed to substantiate their allegation that they were prohibited from entering the restaurant, or that they were threatened and intimidated by Opura as to keep them away from the premises.
Instead, and as the NLRC aptly observed, respondents failed to prove that Opura’s presence created a hostile work environment, or that the latter threatened and intimidated them=qqaso much as to convince them to leave their employment.
As the Court sees it, petitioners found it necessary to enforce the foregoing measures to control and regulate the conduct and behavior of their employees, to maintain order in the work premises, and ultimately, preserve their business (Perlas-Bernabe, J., SC 1st Division, John L. Borja, et.al. vs. Randy B. Miñoza and Alaine S. Bandalan, G.R. No. 218384, July 3, 2017).