Gelos v.

CA
G.R. No. 86186
8 May 1992

FACTS:

Rafael Gelos was employed by Ernesto Alzona and his parents as their laborer on a 25,000-sq. m
farmland. They executed a written contract which stipulated that as hired laborer Gelos would receive a
daily wage of P5.00. Three years later, Gelos was informed of the termination of his services and was
asked to vacate the property. Gelos refused and continued working on the land. Alzona filed a complaint
for illegal detainer. The lower court found Gelos as tenant of the property and entitled to remain
thereon as such. The decision was reversed by the Court of Appeals.   

ISSUE:

Whether or not Gelos is a tenant.

RULING:

Gelos is not a tenant but a hired laborer. It was clear that the petitioner was not a tenant but a
hired laborer as shown in the contract they entered into. In tenancy relationship, it is the landowner
who is the lessor, and the tenant is the lessee of agricultural land. The agricultural worker works for the
farm employer and for his labor be receives a salary or wage regardless of whether the employer makes
a profit.

Here, the private respondent, instead of receiving payment of rentals or sharing in the produce
of the land, paid the petitioner lump sums for specific kinds of work on the subject lot or gave him vales,
or advance payment of his wages as laborer thereon.
Leonardo v. NLRC
G.R. No. 125303
16 June 2000
Fuerte and Leonardo v. NLRC
G.R. No. 126937
16 June 2000

FACTS: 
Petitioner was a mechanic employed by Reynaldo’s Marketing Corporation. He was transferred
to another plant of the company, and his supervisor’s allowance correspondingly withdrawn, allegedly
due to his failure to meet his sales quota. He then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, alleging
constructive dismissal. Reynaldo’s denied the charge; it was simply carrying out a policy designed to
encourage work efficiency and competitiveness by giving out extra allowances and choice assignments
to employees who meet the required quota. Failure to maintain such quota simply means loss of the
assignment and extra allowances.
With regard to Leonardo, private respondent likewise insists that it never severed the former's
employment. On the contrary, the company claims that it was LEONARDO who abandoned his post
following an investigation wherein he was asked to explain an incident of alleged "sideline" work which
occurred on April 22, 1991. It would appear that late in the evening of the day in question, the driver of
a red Corolla arrived at the shop looking for LEONARDO. The driver said that, as prearranged, he was to
pick up LEONARDO who would perform a private service on the vehicle. When reports of the "sideline"
work reached management, it confronted LEONARDO and asked for an explanation. According to private
respondent, LEONARDO gave contradictory excuses, eventually claiming that the unauthorized service
was for an aunt. When pressed to present his aunt, it was then that LEONARDO stopped reporting for
work, filing his complaint for illegal dismissal some ten months after his alleged termination.

ISSUE: 
Whether or not petitioner was constructively dismissed.

RULING: 
Constructive dismissal is an involuntary resignation resorted to by an employee when his
continued employment becomes impossible, unreasonable, or unlikely or when there is demotion in
rank or diminution in pay, or when a clear determination, insensibility or disdain by the employer
becomes unbearable.

In the case at bar, there was a demotion and corresponding decrease in pay, but it was for cause (failure
to meet the required quota). The right to demote falls within the employer’s prerogative, since an
employer may set employment standards and appropriate sanctions for failure to meet the latter. On
Leonardo’s part, there was no illegal dismissal because Leonardo was not dismissed but instead, he
abandoned his employment.