CONSTRUCTIVE DISMISSAL

NELSON GAN vs. GALDERMA PHILIPPINES, INC.

G.R. No. 177167, January 17, 2013, 688 SCRA 666

FACTS: Nelson was hired by Galderma as Product Manager for its

Consumer Products Division to handle the marketing of CBPL. With his
satisfactory performance since during the first year, Nelson was
acknowledged and rewarded by Galderma through positive performance
appraisal, salary and benefits increases, and informal notations on his
marketing reports.

Nelsons above-average performance in handling CBPL continued in the

first quarter of 2002. On April 11, 2002, feeling he was harassed, coerced
and intimated by his superior, Nelson severed his employment ties with
Galderma. On the same day, his immediate superior at the time accepted
the resignation tendered.

ISSUE: Whether Nelson was illegally or constructively dismissed.

HELD: NO. Constructive dismissal is defined as quitting of work because

continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely.

The TEST of constructive dismissal is whether a REASONABLE PERSON

in the employees position would have felt compelled to give up his
employment/position under the circumstances.

Since Nelson submitted a resignation letter, it is incumbent upon him

to prove with clear, positive, and convincing evidence that his
resignation was not voluntary but was actually a case of constructive
dismissal, that it is a product of coercion or intimidation. Nelson could
not have been coerced.
The acts of harassment, if true, do not suffice to be considered as
peculiar circumstances material to the execution of the subject
resignation letter that is couched in a clear, concise and categorical
language. Its content confirmed his unmistakable intent to resign.

Further, Nelson is no ordinary laborer with limited education and skills,

he is not a rank and file employee with inadequate understanding such
that he would be easily beguiled or forced into doing something against
his will. He was a management employee holding a responsible position.

GIRLY G. ICO vs. SYSTEM TECHNOLOGY INSTITUTE, INC.

G.R. No. 185100, July 9, 2014, 729 SCRA 439.

When another employee is soon after appointed to a position which

the employer claims has been abolished, while the employee who had
to vacate the same is transferred against her will to a position which
does not exist in the corporate structure, there is evidently a case of
illegal constructive dismissal.

MCMER CORPORATIONS, INC. vs. NLRC & FELICIANO LIBUNAO

G.R. No. 193421, June 4, 2014, 725 SCRA 1

Constructive dismissal is defined as a cessation of work because

continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely;
when there 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.

The test of constructive dismissal is whether a reasonable person in the

employers position would have felt compelled to give up his position
under the circumstances. It is an act amounting to dismissal but made
to appear as if is were not. Constructive dismissal, is therefore, a
dismissal in disguise.
As maybe gleaned from the records, what transpired on July 20, 2007 was
not merely an isolated outburst on the part of the employer. The
latters behavior towards his employee shows a clear insensibility
rendering the working condition of Libunao unbearable.

Libunao had reason to dawdle and refuse to comply with the summons
of his employer out of severe fear that he will be physically harmed.

In fact, the same was clearly manifested by his immediate reaction to

the situation by going to the Valenzuela Police to report the incident.

VICENTE ANG vs. CEFERINO SAN JOAQUIN, JR.

G.R. No. 185549, August 7, 2013, 703 SCRA 269

FACTS: San Joaquin testified in court relative to the 41 criminal cases

filed by his former co-employees against his employer, Vicente Ang. The
latter began treating him with hostility and antagonism.

Later on, a heated argument ensued between them and led Ang tearing
his Daily Time Record.

The following day, he received a Memorandum from Ang placing him

under preventive suspension.

ISSUE: Whether the act of tearing employees time card constitutes

constructive dismissal.

HELD: YES. By destroying his time card, Ang discontinued his relationship
with San Joaquin. The purpose of a time card is to show an employees
attendance in office for work and to be paid accordingly, taking into
account the policy of no work, no pay.

A daily time record is primarily intended to prevent damage or loss to

the employer which could result in instances where it pays an employee
for no work done.

VENANCIO S. REYES vs. RP GUARDIANS SECURITY AGENCY

G.R. No. 193756, April 10, 2013, 695 SCRA 620

There is an illegal dismissal when employees were placed on floating

status beyond the reasonable six-month period.

ORCHARD GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB vs. AMELIA R. FRANCISCO

G.R. No. 178125, March 18, 2013, 693 SCRA 497

Demotion in rank constitutes constructive dismissal.