Ang vs. San Joaquin, Jr.

Tearing an employee’s time card is an outright, not merely symbolic, termination of employment, and may establish constructive dismissal when done amid the employer’s vindictive and oppressive conduct; abandonment is not present where the employee returns to work and immediately files a labor case.

Vicente Ang was the proprietor of Virose Furniture and Glass Supply in Tayug, Pangasinan, a wholesaler/retailer of glass supplies, jalousies, aluminum windows, table glass, and assorted furniture. Ceferino San Joaquin, Jr. and Diosdado Fernandez were regular employees of Virose, hired in 1974 as helper and in 1982 as driver, respectively; San Joaquin is Ang’s first cousin, their mothers being sisters.

San Joaquin and Fernandez had been continuously in Ang’s employ without any derogatory record, each receiving a daily salary of ₱166.00; San Joaquin became a pahinante or delivery helper and later an all-around worker of Virose. On August 24, 1999, respondents attended the court hearing in the 41 criminal cases filed by former Virose employee Daniel Abrera against Ang for non-remittance of SSS contributions. During that hearing, respondents testified against Ang; it was San Joaquin’s second time to testify and Fernandez’s first. Respondents had previously joined Abrera in questioning Ang’s procedure in remitting their SSS contributions. After the hearing, Ang began to treat respondents with hostility and antagonism.

On August 28, 1999, Ang’s wife, Rosa, instructed a Virose salesclerk to find helpers who would transfer monobloc chairs from the Virose store to her restaurant, Leng-Leng’s Foodshop, located just beside the store. The salesclerk instructed San Joaquin to help, but San Joaquin refused, saying that he was not an employee of the restaurant but a glass installer of Virose. A heated argument ensued between San Joaquin on one hand and Rosa, her son Jonathan, and the salesclerk on the other; San Joaquin left the store shouting invectives.

On August 30, 1999, San Joaquin returned to the store and found that Ang had torn his DTR to pieces that day, while Fernandez’s DTR had been torn to pieces by Ang immediately after the August 24, 1999 hearing in which respondents testified. On the same day, Fernandez reported for work and received a memorandum of even date issued by Ang placing him on a one-week suspension for insubordination; the memorandum did not specify the act of insubordination. On August 31, 1999, respondents filed against Ang Complaints for illegal constructive dismissal with claims for backwages and separation pay, docketed as NLRC Case No. SUB-RAB-1-07-8-0175-99 Pang.

On September 5, 1999, Fernandez confronted Ang and demanded that Ang sign certain documents which Fernandez had with him. Ang refused, and Fernandez, who was then intoxicated, left uttering unsavory remarks and threatening to sue Ang. On September 8, 1999, San Joaquin received a memorandum from Ang dated August 30, 1999, placing him under preventive suspension and ordering him to explain in writing within three days why no disciplinary action should be imposed against him for his refusal to obey the August 28, 1999 instructions to transfer the monobloc chairs. On September 13, 1999, Fernandez received another memorandum from Ang ordering him to report for work after being absent for a week. On September 21, 1999, Ang issued a memorandum terminating San Joaquin’s employment.

In their Position Paper, respondents claimed that they were constructively dismissed on August 30, 1999, when the workplace became extremely unbearable owing to their attendance at the August 24, 1999 hearing where they testified against Ang; they accused Ang of irregularities in SSS remittance, verbal abuse, assigning tasks outside their work, and removing and tearing their DTRs, which they called the “last straw that finally broke the camel’s back.” Fernandez claimed that the August 30, 1999 suspension memorandum was illegal because it did not specify the act of insubordination, its date, and the company policy violated; that the September 13, 1999 memorandum was a prevarication because he reported for work on three occasions but could not find his time card; and that he received no notice of dismissal. Ang claimed that respondents were disrespectful, disobedient, abandoned their employment, went on AWOL, and failed to respond to his memoranda, so they were dismissed for cause. The Labor Arbiter found that respondents cited only two alleged instances of discrimination/reprisal—the August 28, 1999 chair-transfer incident and Fernandez’s failure to find his DTR—and that the order to transfer the chairs was reasonable; that San Joaquin was guilty of insubordination; that the loss of Fernandez’s time card was not sufficient reason to suppose termination; that the memoranda were not an afterthought; and that respondents were guilty of abandonment. The CA found that San Joaquin went to the store on August 30, 1999 after the August 28 incident and found his time card torn, while Fernandez reported for work and received a suspension memorandum despite his time card having been torn; it also found that respondents immediately filed the illegal dismissal Complaints.

• Abandonment: Petitioner insisted that respondents abandoned their employment; Fernandez failed to report for work after serving the August 30, 1999 suspension and continued to absent himself despite the September 13, 1999 memorandum ordering him to return.
• Insubordination and Misconduct: Petitioner argued that respondents were guilty of gross insubordination/disobedience and misconduct, citing San Joaquin’s refusal to carry out the August 28, 1999 order, his shouting of invectives at Rosa, and Fernandez’s September 5, 1999 conduct.
• Scope of Work: Petitioner maintained that San Joaquin was an all-around helper, so the August 28, 1999 order to transfer monobloc chairs from Virose to Leng-Leng’s Foodshop was within his scope of work and he could not refuse it.
• No Prayer for Reinstatement: Petitioner claimed that respondents’ failure to pray for reinstatement in their Complaint and Position Paper bolstered his argument that they abandoned their employment.

• Procedural Defects: Respondents cited procedural errors, specifically that the attached copies of the assailed CA Decision and Resolution were not certified by the appellate court’s Clerk of Court and contained no certification that they were from original copies on file.
• Constructive Dismissal: Respondents echoed the CA’s finding of illegal constructive dismissal and argued that Ang’s oppressive conduct, tied to the criminal cases where they testified against him, made life in the workplace unbearable.
• Length of Service and Good Faith: Respondents implored the SC to consider their length of service and lack of a derogatory record, and to affirm the CA disposition.

• Procedural Defects: Whether the Petition should be dismissed outright because the attached CA Decision and Resolution were not certified by the appellate court’s Clerk of Court and lacked certification that they were from original copies on file.
• Constructive Dismissal: Whether the CA correctly reversed the NLRC and Labor Arbiter and found respondents illegally constructively dismissed when Ang tore their time cards and treated them oppressively after they testified against him.
• Abandonment: Whether respondents abandoned their employment, considering their absences and their failure to pray for reinstatement.
• Monetary Awards and Interest: Whether Ang is liable for separation pay, backwages, and attorney’s fees, and whether interest should be imposed.

• Procedural Defects: No. The SC opted to forego the alleged procedural errors and address the substantive labor issues; the alleged infirmity did not warrant outright dismissal without considering the Petition’s merits.
• Constructive Dismissal: Yes. Constructive dismissal was established; Ang’s tearing of respondents’ time cards and oppressive treatment after they testified against him amounted to outright termination and made continued employment impossible, unreasonable, or unlikely.
• Abandonment: No. Abandonment requires failure to report for work for no valid reason and a categorical intention to discontinue employment; respondents returned to work, immediately filed the labor case, and their failure to pray for reinstatement showed strained relations, not abandonment.
• Monetary Awards and Interest: Yes. The CA’s awards of separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, backwages, and 10% attorney’s fees were affirmed, with 6% per annum interest on the total monetary awards from finality until full payment.

• Procedural Defects: The SC opted to forego the procedural errors attributed by respondents. It reasoned that this is a labor case whose substantive issues must be addressed more than anything else, and the nature of the alleged procedural infirmity—uncertified copies of the CA Decision and Resolution and lack of certification from original copies—cannot prod the SC to dismiss the Petition outright without first considering its merits. Thus, the SC proceeded to the substantive labor issues.
• Constructive Dismissal: The SC noted a divergence between the factual findings of the NLRC and the CA, and their conclusions were diametrically opposed; under Best Wear Garments vs. De Lemos, such divergence requires review of the records and the doctrine respecting specialized administrative agencies must be set aside for the moment. The SC found considerable reason to believe Ang began to treat respondents with disdain and discrimination after the August 24, 1999 hearing where they testified against him. Respondents’ claim that Ang subjected them to verbal abuse and assigned tasks not part of their work was rooted in the 41 estafa charges against Ang, where they testified for the State; Ang did not successfully dispute this and remained silent, despite bearing the burden to show no illegal dismissal. Under RDS Trucking vs. National Labor Relations Commission, the filing of criminal charges between employer and employee confirms strained relations; respondents testified against Ang while under his employ, and Ang could not reasonably be expected to thank them but was not allowed to treat them oppressively. The SC found Ang started treating respondents unfairly and oppressively; respondents’ reaction could be explained by human nature and self-defense against constant abuse. Their long service without derogatory record—San Joaquin since 1974 and Fernandez since 1982—entitled them to good faith under Pizza Hut/Progressive Development Corporation vs. National Labor Relations Commission. Their behavior was not condoned, but it characterized the degeneration of the relationship owing to Ang’s vindictive and oppressive acts. Constructive dismissal exists where continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable, or unlikely; it is dismissal in disguise; it may exist where clear discrimination, insensibility, or disdain becomes unbearable; it exists when the employee involuntarily resigns due to harsh, hostile, unfavorable conditions; the test is whether a reasonable person in the employee’s position would have felt compelled to give up his position. The CA was correct. Moreover, by destroying respondents’ time cards, Ang discontinued and severed the relationship. A time record shows attendance for work and payment under the no work, no pay policy; it is primarily intended to prevent damage or loss to the employer, is mandatory for payroll, and in absence of an employment agreement constitutes evidence of employment. Tearing the time cards virtually removed respondents from the payroll and erased vestiges of employment; the act was an outright—not only symbolic—termination and the last straw. It also confirmed Ang’s vindictive nature and oppressive conduct and reckless disregard for respondents’ rights.
• Abandonment: For termination on abandonment to be valid, the employer must prove by substantial evidence the concurrence of the employee’s failure to report for work for no valid reason and his categorical intention to discontinue employment (Martinez vs. B&B Fish Broker). The SC found no intention to abandon; respondents’ repeated absences were caused by Ang’s oppressive treatment and indifference, which they grew tired of and wanted a break from. Employees cannot be expected to work efficiently in an atmosphere pervaded by employer hostility; respondents may have stayed away to cool off, not to abandon. They returned to work, but their time cards had been torn. As the CA held, the immediate filing of the labor case negates abandonment; employees who immediately protest dismissal by filing a labor case cannot logically be said to have abandoned their employment (Megaforce Security and Allied Services, Inc. vs. Lactao). Respondents could not be faulted for failing to submit replies to Ang’s memoranda because by the time they were notified, the labor Complaints had been filed, and their cause of action was constructive dismissal occurring prior to the memoranda. Their failure to pray for reinstatement was not a valid indication of abandonment; it was proof of strained relations, such that they sought separation pay and risked unemployment rather than fight for reinstatement under Ang.
• Monetary Awards and Interest: The CA found respondents illegally dismissed and ordered separation pay in lieu of reinstatement because resentment and enmity had transpired and strained relations existed; backwages computed from August 30, 1999, the time of illegal dismissal, up to the date of finality of the decision, without qualification or deduction; attorney’s fees of 10% of the total amount awarded; and remand to the NLRC for proper computation. The SC affirmed the CA Decision and Resolution with modification, imposing interest at 6% per annum in accordance with BSP Circular No. 799, Series of 2013, effective July 1, 2013, on the total monetary awards from finality of the SC Decision until full payment.

• Constructive Dismissal — It exists where there is cessation of work because continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable, or unlikely, as an offer involving demotion in rank and diminution in pay; it is a dismissal in disguise or an act amounting to dismissal but made to appear as if it were not. It may also exist where an act of clear discrimination, insensibility, or disdain by the employer becomes so unbearable that it forecloses any choice except to forego continued employment, or where the employee involuntarily resigns due to harsh, hostile, and unfavorable conditions. The SC applied it because Ang’s oppressive treatment after respondents testified against him made the workplace insufferable.
• Test of Constructive Dismissal — The test is whether a reasonable person in the employee’s position would have felt compelled to give up his position under the circumstances. The SC applied this test to respondents, who faced Ang’s hostility and torn time cards.
• Tearing of Time Card as Outright Termination — A time record shows attendance for work and payment under the no work, no pay policy; it is primarily intended to prevent damage or loss to the employer, is mandatory for payroll, and in the absence of an employment agreement constitutes evidence of employment. When the employer tore the employees’ time cards, he virtually removed them from the payroll and erased vestiges of employment; the act was an outright—not only symbolic—termination and the last straw.
• Abandonment — For termination on abandonment to be valid, the employer must prove by substantial evidence the concurrence of (a) the employee’s failure to report for work for no valid reason and (b) his categorical intention to discontinue employment. The SC found no such intention because respondents’ absences were caused by Ang’s oppressive treatment and they returned to work.
• Immediate Filing of Labor Case Negates Abandonment — Employees who immediately protest their dismissal by filing a labor case cannot logically be said to have abandoned their employment. The SC applied this to respondents’ August 31, 1999 Complaints.
• No Prayer for Reinstatement as Evidence of Strained Relations — Failure to pray for reinstatement is not a valid indication of abandonment; it can be proof of strained relations, where the employee seeks separation pay and risks unemployment rather than return to the employer. The SC applied this to respondents.
• Divergence Between NLRC and CA Findings — When there is a divergence between the factual findings of the NLRC and the CA, there is a need to review the records; the doctrine that findings of specialized administrative agencies should be respected must be set aside for the moment. The SC applied this because the NLRC and CA conclusions were diametrically opposed.
• Employer’s Burden in Illegal Dismissal — The burden of proof lay on Ang to show that no illegal dismissal was effected. The SC noted Ang’s silence on the claim that his hostility was rooted in the criminal cases where respondents testified.

• "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." — The SC used this as the frame for holding that Ang’s destruction of the time cards ended the 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." — The SC quoted this definition to explain why Ang’s conduct amounted to constructive dismissal.
• "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." — The SC applied this objective test to respondents’ situation.
• "must prove, by substantial evidence, the concurrence of [the employee’s] failure to report for work for no valid reason and his categorical intention to discontinue employment." — The SC used this two-part requirement to reject Ang’s abandonment defense.

• Best Wear Garments vs. De Lemos, G.R. No. 191281, December 5, 2012 — Cited for the rule that a divergence between the NLRC’s and the CA’s factual findings requires review of the records.
• RDS Trucking vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 356 Phil. 122, 131 (1998) — Cited for the rule that the filing of criminal charges by and between employer and employee confirms strained relations.
• Pizza Hut/Progressive Development Corporation vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 322 Phil. 579, 588 (1996) — Cited for crediting employees with good faith, especially where they have served the employer for a long time without dishonesty.
• Galang vs. Malasugui, G.R. No. 174173, March 7, 2012, 667 SCRA 622, 634-635 — Cited for the definition of constructive dismissal as cessation of work because continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable, or unlikely.
• Dimagan vs. Dacworks United, Incorporated, G.R. No. 191053, November 28, 2011, 661 SCRA 438, 446 — Cited for the test of constructive dismissal: whether a reasonable person in the employee’s position would have felt compelled to give up his position.
• Martinez vs. B&B Fish Broker, G.R. No. 179985, September 18, 2009, 600 SCRA 691, 696 — Cited for the requisites of abandonment: failure to report for work for no valid reason and categorical intention to discontinue employment.
• Megaforce Security and Allied Services, Inc. vs. Lactao, G.R. No. 160940, July 21, 2008, 559 SCRA 110, 118 — Cited for the rule that immediate filing of a labor case negates abandonment.
• Layug vs. Sandiganbayan, 392 Phil. 691, 707 (2000) — Cited for the purpose of a time record: to show attendance for work and payment under the no work, no pay policy, and as evidence of employment.

• BSP Circular No. 799, Series of 2013 — The SC applied it by imposing interest at 6% per annum on the total monetary awards from finality of the Decision until full payment, effective July 1, 2013.