Star Paper Corp.

, vs Simbol
G.R. 164774 April 12, 2006

Facts: Star Paper Corporation employed Ronaldo Simbol on Oct 1993. He met Alma Dayrit,
also an employee of the company, whom he married. Before marriage, Josephine Ongsitco
the manager advised the couple that one of them must resign if they decided to get married
pursuant to a company policy to which Simbol complied. On February 5, 1997 Comia was
hired by the company. She met Howard Comia, a co-employee, whom she married on June
1, 2000. Ongsitco likewise reminded them the company policy, Comia resigned on June 30,
2000.Estrella was also hired on July 29, 1994. She met Luisito Zuñiga also a co-worker.
Petitioners stated that Zuñiga, a married man, got Estrella pregnant. The company allegedly
could have terminated her services due to immorality but she opted to resign on December
21, 1999.

Issue: Whether or not the questioned policy violates the rights of the employee under the
Constitution and the Labor Code?

Held: Yes. It is significant to note that respondents were hired after they were found fit for
the job, but were asked to resign when they married a co-employee. Petitioners failed to show
how the marriage of Simbol to Alma Dayrit could be detrimental to its business operations. It
must be reasonable under the circumstances to qualify as a valid exercise of management
prerogative.

The questioned policy may not facially violate Article 136 of the Labor Code but it creates a
disproportionate effect. The failure of petitioners to prove a legitimate business concern in
imposing the questioned policy cannot prejudice the employee’s right to be free from arbitrary
discrimination based upon stereotypes of married persons working together in one company.
JOHN L. BORJA and AUBREY L. BORJA/DONG JUAN, petitioners, vs. RANDY B.
MIÑOZA and ALAINE S. BANDALAN, respondents

G.R. No. 218384 July 3, 2017

FACTS: Respondents alleged that on April 1, 2011, a Friday, Miñoza was absent from work.
Because the company implements a "double-absent" policy, which considers an employee
absent for two (2) days without pay if he/she incurs an absence on a Friday, Saturday, or
Sunday, the busiest days for the restaurant, he chose not to report for work the next day,
or on April 2, 2011.

Bandalan discovered thereafter that John was angry at him for having drinking sessions
after work on April 1, 2011. Because of the "double-absent" policy, Bandalan purposely
absented himself from work on April 3, 2011. On April 3, 2011, the company called a
meeting of its employees, including respondents.

The following day, or on April 4, 2011, petitioners summoned respondents once again.
Angrily, John accused respondents of planning to extort money from the company and told
them that if they no longer wish to work, they should resign. He then gave them blank
sheets of paper and pens and ordered them to write their own resignation letters.
Respondents replied that they will decide the next day.

On April 5, 2011, the day after, respondents alleged that they reported for work but were
barred from entering the restaurant. Instead, petitioners brought them to another
restaurant where they were forced to receive separate memoranda asking them to justify
their unexplained absences.

When respondents reported for work on April 6, 2011, they were purportedly refused entry
once more. At closing time that day, respondents were invited to go inside the restaurant
and were subjected to an on-the-spot drug test, the results of which yielded negative.

ISSUE#1:Whether or not respondents were constructively dismissed.

ISSUE#2: Whether or not petitioners abandoned their employment.

HELD#1: NO. 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. The circumstances claimed by the
respondents do not constitute grounds constituting 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 therefor, 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 so 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.
HELD#2: NO. The Court finds that respondents did not go on AWOL, or abandon their
employment, as petitioners claimed. To constitute abandonment, two (2) elements must
concur: (a) the failure to report for work or absence without valid or justifiable reason, and
(b) a clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship, with the second element
as the more determinative factor and being manifested by some overt acts. Mere absence is
not sufficient. The employer has the burden of proof to show a deliberate and unjustified
refusal of the employee to resume his employment without any intention of returning.
Abandonment is incompatible with constructive dismissal

In this case, records show that respondents wasted no time in filing a complaint against
petitioners to protest their purported illegal dismissal from employment. As the filing thereof
belies petitioners' charge of abandonment, the only logical conclusion, therefore, is that
respondents had no such intention to abandon their work.
Provincial Bus Operators Association of the Philippines vs DOLE

GR 202275, July 17 2018

Facts: Petitioners question the constitutionality of said policy content, namely:DOLE

Department Order 118-12, and its implementing guidelines; and LTFRB Memorandum
Circular 2012-001, requiring "all Public Utility Bus (PUB) operators . . . to secure Labor
Standards Compliance Certificates" They argue that both policies violate the constitutional
rights of public utility bus operators to due process of law, equal protection of the laws, and
non-impairment of obligation of contracts.

On January 28, 2012, Atty. Emmanuel A. Mahipus, on behalf of the petitioners, wrote to
then Secretary of Labor and Employment, requesting to defer the implementation of
Department Order No. 118-12. The request was not acted upon.

Petitions filed a Petition for TRO and a Writ of Preliminary Injunction, impleading the DOLE
and the LTFRB, to enjoin the implementation of Department Order No. 118-12 and
Memorandum Circular No. 2012-001 for being violative of their right to due process, equal
protection, and non-impairment of obligation of contracts..

As earlier stated, petitioners assail the constitutionality of Department Order No. 118-12
and Memorandum Circular No. 2012-001, arguing that these issuances violate petitioners'
rights to non-impairment of obligation of contracts, due process of law, and equal protection
of the laws. Particularly with respect to Department Order No. 118-12, its provisions on the
payment of part-fixed-part-performance-based wage allegedly impair petitioners' obligations
under their existing collective bargaining agreements where they agreed with their bus
drivers and conductors on a commission or boundary basis.

Issue: Do the policies of DOLE Department Order 118-12, its implementing guidelines, and
LTFRB Memorandum Circular 2012-001 violate the constitutional rights of the petitioners
and their constituents?

Ruling: No. The Court presumes that official acts of the other branches of government are
constitutional. This Court proceeds on the theory that "before the act was done or the law
was enacted, earnest studies were made by Congress or the President, or both, to insure
that the Constitution would not be breached." Absent a clear showing of breach of
constitutional text, the validity of the law or action shall be sustained.
PHIL SPAN ASIA V PELAYO
Gr. 212003 February 28, 2018

FACTS:

Pelayo was employed by Sulpicio Lines as an accounting clerk at its Davao City branch
office. As accounting clerk, her main duties were "to receive statements and billings for
processing of payments, prepare vouchers and checks for the approval and signature of the
branch manager, and release checks for payment Sulpicio Lines uncovered several
anomalous transactions in its Davao City branch office.

Sulpicio Lines' Cebu-based management team went to Davao to investigate from March 3 to
5, 2010. Pelayo was interviewed by members of the management team as "she was the one
who personally prepared the cash vouchers and checks for approval by Tan and Sobiaco.

The management team was unable to complete its investigation by March 5, 2010. Thus, a
follow-up investigation had to be conducted. On March 8, 2010, Pelayo was asked to come
to Sulpicio Lines' Cebu main office for another interview. Sulpicio Lines shouldered all the
expenses arising from Pelayo's trip.

In the midst of a panel interview, Pelayo walked out. She later claimed that she was being
coerced to admit complicity with Tan and Sobiaco. Pelayo then returned to Davao
City, where she was admitted to a hospital "because of depression and a nervous
breakdown. She eventually filed for leave of absence and ultimately stopped reporting for
work.

Following an initial phone call asking her to return to Cebu, Sulpicio Lines served on Pelayo
a memorandum dated March 15, 2010, requiring her to submit a written explanation
concerning "double disbursements, payments of ghost purchases and issuances of checks
with amounts bigger than what were stated in the vouchers. Sulpicio Lines also placed
Pelayo on preventive suspension for 30 days.

Instead of responding to Sulpicio Lines' memorandum or appearing before the National

Bureau of Investigation, Pelayo filed a Complaint against Sulpicio Lines charging it with
constructive dismissal.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioner's investigation amounted to respondent's constructive
dismissal.

HELD:

No. There is no objective proof demonstrating how the interview in Cebu actually
proceeded. Other than respondent's bare allegation, there is nothing to support the claim
that her interviewers were hostile, distrusting, and censorious, or that the interview was a
mere pretext to pin her down. Respondent's recollection is riddled with impressions,
unsupported by independently verifiable facts. These impressions are subjective products of
nuanced perception, personal interpretation, and ingrained belief that cannot be appreciated
as evidencing "the truth respecting a matter of fact.

The discomfort of having to come to the investigation's venue, the strain of recalling and
testifying on matters that transpired months prior, the frustration that she was being
dragged into the wrongdoing of other employees—if indeed she was completely innocent—or
the trepidation that a reckoning was forthcoming—if indeed she was guilty—and many other
worries doubtlessly weighed on respondent. Yet, these are normal burdens cast upon her
plainly on account of having to cooperate in the investigation. They themselves do not
translate to petitioner's malice. Respondent's physical response may have been acute, but
this, by itself, can only speak of her temperament and physiology. It would be fallacious to
view this physical response as proof of what her interviewers actually told her or did to her.