“What are the acts that render continued employment impossible?”
“Constructive dismissal [occurs] ‘when continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely; when there is a demotion in rank and/or a diminution in pay; or when a clear discrimination, insensibility or disdain by an employer becomes unbearable to the employee.’” (Bartolome v. Toyota Quezon Ave., Inc., et al., G.R. No. 254465, April 03, 2024)
“[T]he impossibility, unreasonableness, or unlikelihood of continued employment leaves an employee with no other viable recourse but to terminate his or her employment.” “At its core, however, is the gratuitous, unjustified, or unwarranted nature of the employer’s action” (G.R. No. 254465, April 03, 2024).
It must be noted that “the unreasonably harsh conditions which compel resignation on the part of an employee must be way beyond the occasional discomforts brought about by the misunderstandings between the employer and employee” (G.R. No. 254465, April 03, 2024).
“Strong words may sometimes be exchanged as the employers describe their expectations or as the employees narrate the conditions of their work environment… as they accomplish their assigned tasks. As in every human relationship, there are bound to be disagreements” (G.R. No. 254465, April 03, 2024).
“However, when these strong words from the employer happen without palpable reason or are expressed only for the purpose of degrading the dignity of the employee, then a hostile work environment will be created.” “[T]he doctrine of constructive dismissal has been the Court’s consistent vehicle to assert the dignity of labor” (G.R. No. 254465, April 03, 2024).
“The [Supreme] Court has held that the standard for constructive dismissal is ‘whether a reasonable person in the employee’s position would have felt compelled to give up [his or her] employment under the circumstances’” (G.R. No. 254465, April 03, 2024).
This was the issue faced by the Supreme Court in the case of Bartolome v. Toyota Quezon Avenue, Inc. (TQAI), et al., where the former “received from the Human Resources Department of TQAI a Notice of Decision for Habitual Absences for the month of October 2015 and a Notice of Explanation for Habitual Absences for the month of November 2015.”
“On top of these, he received another notice placing him under a seven-day suspension for a third offense. To these notices, he submitted his reply” [and] had a meeting with the management where he was accompanied by his sibling as counsel.
Subsequently, he attended a marketing professionals’ meeting where TQAI’s President uttered the following statements:
“x x x. Bakit isa lang ba kayong empleyado sa opisinang ito, bakit only child ba kayo? Kung only child pwede kaso pag only child normally ano nangyayari pag only child “spoiled”. Wag nyo naman kami subukan, tapos magdadala kayo ng tatay/nanay para isumbong kami, tapos icc: nyo kung sino man dapat nyo icc:”
In another incident, “leather seat covers were wrongly installed in the car unit of his [Bartolome’s] client, without any order from him.” “[H]e pressed for an investigation, but TQAI Group Retail Manager… spewed this sarcastic remark, ‘Alangan nam[a]ng pati si Oda pagbayarin mo pa. Ano ba ang pinaglalaban mo?’”
“Following his transfer to another group, many of his accounts were pulled out from him [without] any explanation. When he protested, TQAI General Sales Manager… quickly responded—’[a]yaw ka na pahawakan ng accounts ni Boss Lincoln. Accounts nya yan. Siya ang may say.’”
“When he tried to process one particular sale under one of his few remaining accounts, TQAI General Sales Manager… refused to sign the vehicle sales proposal and warned him, ‘[h]indi ka pwede magrelease sa kliyenteng ito. Pwede mo iprocess pero ipangalan mo sa iba.’”
Worse, “[h]is new boss… asked him point blank, ‘[a]no plano mo, magreresign ka?’” The Supreme Court said that “[Bartolome’s] account of the events which rendered his employment conditions unbearable, leaving him with no other choice but to resign, was ‘candid, straightforward [,] and categorical.’”
“Verily, [Bartolome] was constructively dismissed. [T]he calculated and combined acts of TQAI President…, TQAI Group Retail Manager…, TQAI General Sales Manager…, and Group Head… toward [Bartolome]” left him no choice but to leave his employment.
TQAI and the rest of the respondents insist that they cannot be held personally and individually liable for constructive dismissal because of Bartolome’s voluntary resignation. To them, “his resignation letter was simple, candid, and direct to the point, and left no doubt that he did intend to resign.”
However, “the circumstance before the resignation would show that [Bartolome] did not contemplate nor had any intention of resigning from the company were it not for respondents’ hostile and disdainful actions. When he tried to process his clearance… he was treated like a ‘stranger-criminal’ and subjected to undue harassment” (G.R. No. 254465, April 03, 2024).
