You are on page 1of 2

#211

OSCAR LEDESMA AND COMPANY and ARTURO LEDESMA -versus-


NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and ORLANDO ONDON
G.R. No. 110930 | July 13, 1995

FACTS:

IN 1984 THE PRIVATE RESPONDENT was employed as a security guard by


petitioner company in Hacienda Teresa. Private respondent led a walkout after petitioner
company insisted that the workers at Hacienda Balaring, one of the haciendas also owned
by it, be allowed to vote in the referendum. Then private respondent was prevented from
reporting for work by the hacienda administrator, Nunez, and was told to wait for
petitioner Arturo Ledesma.
Petitioner Ledesma told private respondent that he did not want him to work in the
hacienda anymore as private respondent’s loyalty was with the workers and not with the
petitioner company. Therefore, private respondent filed with RAB No. VI, Bacolod City, a
complaint for illegal dismissal, underpayment of wages and non-payment of service
incentive leave and night shift differential against petitioners.

ISSUE:
Whether or not there is a constructive dismissal?

RULING:
YES. There is a constructive dismissal when the reassignment of an employee
involves a demotion in rank or a diminution in pay. (Lemery Savings and Loan Bank vs.
National Labor Relations Commission, 205 SCRA 492 [1992]; Philippine Japan Active
Carbon Corporation vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 171 SCRA 164 [1989]).

It is clear in this case that the demotion of private respondent is tantamount to a


constructive dismissal. One does not need to stretch his imagination to distinguish the
work of a security guard and that of a common agricultural laborer in a sugar plantation.
Also, there was a diminution of salary, for a security guard is paid on a monthly basis while
a laborer in the sugar plantation is paid either on a daily or piece work basis. Laborers do
not work year-round but only when needed and on off-season months, they are not
required to work all.

Hence, petition is dismissed.


#212
THE PHILIPPINE AMERICAN LIFE AND GENERAL INSURANCE CO. vs.
ANGELITA S. GRAMAJE
G.R. No. 156963 | November 11, 2004

FACTS:

You might also like