Verdadero v. Barney Autolines Group
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Jomar Verdadero (Verdadero) was hired as a bus conductor by respondent Barney Autolines Group of Companies Transport, Inc. (BALGCO) on a commission basis. An altercation occurred between Verdadero and Atty. Gerardo Gimenez (Gimenez), BALGCO's Disciplinary Officer, when Verdadero allegedly failed to recognize Gimenez's wife and subsequently responded arrogantly to Gimenez. Gimenez filed a complaint for serious misconduct against Verdadero. Verdadero claimed he was threatened by Gimenez and feared for his safety, leading him to stop reporting for work. He believed he was illegally dismissed. BALGCO, through Rosela Chito, insisted on disciplinary proceedings and a letter of apology from Verdadero. Procedural History: The Labor Arbiter (LA) dismissed Verdadero's complaint, finding no dismissal occurred and that Verdadero made it impossible to be assigned trips. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) partially granted Verdadero's appeal, ruling he was illegally dismissed and ordering backwages and separation pay. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the NLRC, finding no constructive dismissal or abandonment, and ordered reinstatement without backwages. The Petition: Verdadero filed a petition for review on certiorari, assailing the CA's decision, arguing he was constructively terminated due to Gimenez's actions and BALGCO's subsequent handling of the disciplinary proceedings.
Issue(s)
Whether petitioner Verdadero was constructively dismissed. Whether the acts of the disciplinary officer can be imputed to the employer to constitute constructive dismissal. Whether the employer's actions in handling the disciplinary proceedings amounted to constructive dismissal or harassment. Whether reinstatement and backwages are proper.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' ruling that petitioner Verdadero was not constructively dismissed. Consequently, there is no basis for reinstatement, backwages, or separation pay.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether petitioner Verdadero was constructively dismissed: The Court held that constructive dismissal requires the cessation of work due to conditions that render continued employment impossible, unreasonable, or unlikely, such as demotion or diminution of pay, or acts of clear discrimination, insensibility, or disdain by the employer. In this case, Verdadero failed to establish these conditions. Records did not show any demotion or diminution in pay. While an incident with the disciplinary officer, Atty. Gimenez, occurred, the Court emphasized that unlawful acts committed by a co-employee do not constitute constructive dismissal unless the employer promotes or ratifies such ill-treatment or commits an overt act of illegality. Verdadero's fear of Gimenez, while acknowledged, was not sufficient to impute constructive dismissal upon BALGCO or its owners, Barney and Rosela Chito, as Gimenez lacked the authority to dismiss or constructively dismiss employees. The Court noted that BALGCO management had been urging Verdadero to report back to work, indicating no intent to terminate his employment. Verdadero's own admission of not reporting due to fear of Gimenez, coupled with his surreptitious reporting for work as noted in the logbook, did not establish that BALGCO prohibited him from working or had dismissed him. The Court concluded that Verdadero himself terminated his employment based on his mistaken belief, not due to any act of BALGCO. On Whether the acts of the disciplinary officer can be imputed to the employer to constitute constructive dismissal: The Court clarified that for acts of a co-employee to constitute constructive dismissal, they must be committed by the employer or ratified by the employer. Atty. Gimenez, despite being a disciplinary officer, was found to be a mere employee whose functions did not include the power to dismiss or suspend employees. The authority to dismiss was lodged with the BALGCO management. Therefore, Gimenez's alleged abusive behavior and threats, while potentially hostile, could not be directly imputed to BALGCO as constructive dismissal in the absence of evidence that BALGCO promoted or condoned such ill-treatment or committed an overt act of illegality itself. The CA correctly pointed out that BALGCO could not be blamed for the hostile conditions if they were solely caused by the disciplinary officer's repulsive behavior, and there was no evidence that BALGCO promoted such ill-treatment. On Whether the employer's actions in handling the disciplinary proceedings amounted to constructive dismissal or harassment: The Court found that BALGCO's actions in handling the disciplinary proceedings did not amount to constructive dismissal or harassment. While BALGCO may have shown indecisiveness in resolving the case and insisted on an apology, these actions were not shown to have a vicious or malicious intention to force Verdadero to resign. The management's directive for Verdadero to report for work and attend the proceedings, even if misinterpreted by Verdadero as harassment, was seen by the Court as an effort to resolve the issue and address the company's need for conductors. The fact that Verdadero failed to present himself before the management prevented BALGCO from assigning him any trips, thus creating a situation where no dismissal occurred. The Court disagreed with Verdadero's charges of harassment, deeming them unsubstantiated. On Whether reinstatement and backwages are proper: Since the Court found no dismissal, either actual or constructive, the reliefs of reinstatement and backwages, which are available only to illegally dismissed employees, were deemed improper. Article 279 of the Labor Code, which provides for reinstatement and full backwages, applies only in cases of unjust dismissal. As there was no dismissal, Verdadero could not be reinstated to a position he was still holding. Consequently, the doctrine of strained relations, which is applied when reinstatement is no longer feasible, was also not applicable. Similarly, separation pay, given in lieu of reinstatement, could not be awarded. The CA's ruling against the payment of backwages based on the 'no work, no pay' principle was affirmed.
Main Doctrine
Acts of a co-employee, even if abusive, do not constitute constructive dismissal unless the employer promotes or ratifies such ill-treatment or commits an overt act of illegality. The employer's failure to immediately resolve a disciplinary case or insistence on an apology, without more, does not amount to constructive dismissal if there is no malicious intent to force the employee to resign.