VICENTE ANG, petitioner, vs. CEFERINO SAN JOAQUIN, JR.

,
and DIOSDADO FERNANDEZ, respondents.
G.R. No. 185549. August 7, 2013.

Facts:
Respondents were employed by petitioner in his business as
helper and driver respectively. In a hearing relative to 41
criminal cases filed by his former employee, the respondents
testified against the petitioner. After that, the latter began to
treat them with hostility and antagonism.
One day, upon reporting for work two days later, Employee 1
found out that his DTR was torn into pieces by Ang (employer).
He learned that the DTR of Employee 2 also suffered the same
fate after they testified in Court.
Employee 2 was suspended for a week for insubordination
but the act of insubordination was not specified by Ang in his
memorandum to the latter.
Respondents filed complaints for illegal constructive
dismissal.
Issue: Whether tearing of DTRs of the employees by the
employer constitutes constructive dismissal.
Ruling: Yes. The employer’s act of tearing to pieces the
employee’s time card may be considered an outright – not only
symbolic – termination of the parties’ employment relationship.
Constructive dismissal exists where 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." It is a "dismissal in disguise or an
act amounting to dismissal but made to appear as if it were not.
Constructive dismissal exists when the employee involuntarily
resigns due to the harsh, hostile, and unfavorable conditions set
by the employer." "The test of constructive dismissal is whether a
reasonable person in the employee’s position would have felt
compelled to give up his position under the circumstances.
When Ang tore the respondents’ time cards to pieces, he
virtually removed them from payroll and erased all vestiges of
respondents’ employment; respondents were effectively
dismissed from work. In addition, such tearing of respondents’
time cards confirms petitioner’s vindictive nature and oppressive
conduct, as well as his reckless disregard for respondents’ rights.