"

Constructive Dismissal Cases

Definition

Constructive dismissal happens when an employees continued
employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely, as an offer
involving a demotion in rank or diminution in pay or other benefits. It is also
referred to as a dismissal in disguise or any act amounting to dismissal but made
to appear that it is not. It can also happen when an employer acts with clear
discrimination, insensibility or disdain towards the employee which becomes so
unbearable for the latter that he has no other choice but to forego his continued
employment.
1



Exercise of Management Prerogative

Although the employees are given protection under our laws, it does not,
however, take away the right of the employer to exercise management
prerogative in the aspects of its business undertaking. The employer has the
right to regulate all aspects of employment. Generally, the courts will not
interfere with the said exercise unless the exercise of such right violates the law.


The Test

The test of constructive dismissal is whether an employee would have felt
compelled to give up his employment or position under respective
circumstances.
2



Burden of Proof

In constructive dismissal cases, the burden of proof rests upon the
employer to prove that the employee was not illegally and constructively
dismissed. In cases of transfer, the employer must prove that it was done under
a valid exercise of management prerogative not motivated by discrimination,
bad faith or made as a form of punishment and does not involve demotion or
diminution of benefits on the part of the employee.
3



1
Morales vs. Harbour Centre Port Terminal Inc. G.R. No. 17428, January 25, 2012
2
Gan vs. Galderma Phils. Inc., G.R. No. 177167, January 17, 2013
3
Ibid.
#

INDEFINITE PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION
AMOUNTS TO CONSTRUCTIVE DISMISSAL


Pido vs. NLRC, et al (G.R. No. 169812, 23 February 2007)

The allowable period of suspension in such a case is not six months but only 30 days,
following Sections 8 and 9 of Rule XXIII, Book V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the
Labor Code (Implementing Rules), viz:

SEC. 8. Preventive suspension. - The employer may place the worker concerned
under preventive suspension if his continued employment poses a serious and imminent
threat to the life or property of the employer or of his co-workers.

SEC. 9. Period of suspension. - No preventive suspension shall last longer than thirty
(30) days. The employer shall thereafter reinstate the worker in his former or in a
substantially equivalent position or the employer may extend the period of
suspension provided that during the period of extension, he pays the wages and other
benefits due to the worker. In such case, the worker shall not be bound to reimburse
the amount paid to him during the extension if the employer decides, after completion
of the hearing, to dismiss the worker. (Emphasis, italics, and underscoring supplied)


As above-quoted Section 9 of the said Implementing Rules expressly provides, in the
event the employer chooses to extend the period of suspension, he is required to pay
the wages and other benefits due the worker and the worker is not bound to reimburse
the amount paid to him during the extended period of suspension even if, after the
completion of the hearing or investigation, the employer decides to dismiss him.

Respondent did not inform petitioner that it was extending its investigation, nor did it
pay him his wages and other benefits after the lapse of the 30-day period of
suspension. Neither did respondent issue an order lifting petitioners suspension, or any
official assignment, memorandum or detail order for him to assume his post or another
post. Respondent merely chose to dawdle with the investigation, in absolute disregard
of petitioners welfare.

At the time petitioner filed the complaint for illegal suspension and/or constructive
dismissal on October 23, 2000, petitioner had already been placed under preventive
suspension for nine months. To date, there is no showing or information that, if at all,
respondent still intends to conclude its investigation.

This Court thus rules that petitioners prolonged suspension, owing to respondents
neglect to conclude the investigation, had ripened to constructive dismissal.




$
Maricalum Mining Corporation vs. Antonio Decorion
(G.R. No. 158637, 12 April 2006)


In this case, Decorion was suspended only because he failed to attend a meeting called
by his supervisor. There is no evidence to indicate that his failure to attend the meeting
prejudiced his employer or that his presence in the companys premises posed a serious
threat to his employer and co-workers. The preventive suspension was clearly
unjustified.

What is more, Decorions suspension persisted beyond the 30-day period allowed by the
Implementing Rules. In Premiere Development Bank v. NLRC, private respondents
suspension lasted for more than 30 days counted from the time she was placed on
preventive suspension on March 13, 1986 up to the last day of investigation on April 23,
1986. The Court ruled that preventive suspension which lasts beyond the maximum
period allowed by the Implementing Rules amounts to constructive dismissal.

Similarly, from the time Decorion was placed under preventive suspension on April 11,
1996 up to the time a grievance meeting was conducted on June 5, 1996, 55 days had
already passed. Another 48 days went by before he filed a complaint for illegal dismissal
on July 23, 1996. Thus, at the time Decorion filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, he
had already been suspended for a total of 103 days.

Maricalum Minings contention that there was as yet no illegal dismissal at the time of
the filing of the complaint is evidently unmeritorious. Decorions preventive suspension
had already ripened into constructive dismissal at that time. While actual dismissal and
constructive dismissal do take place in different fashion, the legal consequences they
generate are identical.

Decorions employment may not have been actually terminated in the sense that he was
not served walking papers but there is no doubt that he was constructively dismissed
as he was
%

forced to quit because continued employment was rendered impossible, unreasonable
or unlikely

by Maricalum Minings act of preventing him from reporting for work.



Premiere Development Bank vs NLRC, et al
(G.R. No. 114695, 23 July 1998)


The petition is without merit.

Private respondent's preventive suspension is without valid cause since she was
outrightly suspended by petitioner. As of the date of her preventive suspension on
March 13, 1986 until the date when the last investigation was rescheduled on April 23,
1986, more than 30 days had expired. The NLRC correctly observed that the preventive
suspension beyond the maximum period amounted to constructive dismissal, thus:

"By placing her on indefinite suspension, complainant was unduly deprived of her right
to security in employment which is her only means of livelihood. It is very evident that
complainant was already placed on constructive dismissal status as of March 13, 1986
when she was placed on preventive suspension indefinitely. The actuation of
respondents since no other sound interpretation but a predetermined effort of
dismissing complainant from the service in the guise of preventive suspension."