Doctrine: Employer’s insulting words and hostile behavior toward an employee constitutes constructive dismissal
Facts: In 2009, Bartolome was hired by Toyota Q. Ave as a marketing professional trainee of its Vehicle Sales Department. He became a regular employee in 2010, tasked in selling of Toyota’s cars, products, and services.
On December 2015, Bartolome received a Notice of Decision for Habitual Absences for October 2015 and a Notice of Explanation for the same offense for November 2015. He also received a notice putting him on a 7-day suspension for another offense.
A meeting was set by management for the purpose and Bartolome brought his sibling along, who was a lawyer. After the meeting, he thought that the matter was settled but then the president of the company, in another meeting, uttered remarks against him, especially for bringing his sibling along.
This began a series of incidents which lead Bartolome to resign:
- He got accused of including a leather cover seat as an accessory in the car when his job was just to process documents and it was shown that he was not actually the one to blame;
- His accounts were withdrawn and transferred to another personnel without any explanation;
- He got transferred to another team and his manager even told him that the higher ups do not want for him to handle accounts anymore;
- He was advised to work on accounts, but the accounts he works on will be named after another person;
- He was asked by his new boss: “ano plano mo, magreresign ka?” since he is not jiving well with his new team.
- He raised concerns about his performance scorecard, and thereafter, lower scores were given to him.
- He was pressured to sign a memorandum forcing him to accept changes in his performance bonus;
- He was asked to explain why he did not receive a quota, and he replied that if he had just been allowed to release the units under his accounts, he would have met or exceeded his quota.
These series of events and the hostile working environment become unbearable for him to continue working, and thereafter, he resigned.
Even when he was processing his clearance, he was treated like a stranger. His last pay did not include his commissions and his 13th month pay.
ISSUE: Was Bartolome constructively dismissed?
YES. The foregoing chain of events created a hostile working environment that made it impossible and unbearable for petitioner to continue working for TQAI. On this score, we emphasize that these events were not even refuted by respondents themselves.
In weighing the argument of the parties, it is important to examine the evidence presented. As substantial evidence, or “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion,” the detailed series of events supported by documentary evidence of petitioner must be given credence over the general denial of the respondents. The uttered words of respondents against petitioner, contrary to the respondents’ allegation, are not self-serving statements.
Here, petitioner’s account of the events which rendered his employment conditions unbearable, leaving him with no other choice but to resign, was “candid, straightforward[,] and categorical.” It came from matters of his own personal knowledge. It should not be brushed aside, more so since it was unrefuted by the other party and was even amply corroborated by documentary evidence. Verily, petitioner was constructively dismissed. Surely, the calculated and combined acts of his higher ups constitute acts of disdain and hostile behavior, supporting the conclusion that they were collectively easing out petitioner who consequently had no choice but leave his employment. This is constructive dismissal pure and simple.
Though the labor arbiter found nothing extraordinary about the resignation letter as it did not exactly indicate a tone of anger nor some sense of ingratitude, the circumstance before the resignation would show that he did not contemplate nor had any intention of resigning from the company were it not for respondents’ hostile and disdainful actions. When he tried to process his clearance on April 21, 2016, he was treated like a “stranger-criminal” and subjected to undue harassment. Notably, the document titled “special release of claim and/or quitclaim” dated July 9, 2016, bore, beside his signature, the term “w/o prejudice.” It was an unequivocal reservation of his right to bring an action against respondents despite his execution thereof. Thus, merely 24 days after, on August 4, 2016, he filed a Complaint for illegal/constructive dismissal and money claims against respondents. Doubtless, his resignation was involuntary and bore a clear reservation to file an action against respondents.
