G.R. No. 162332 ; August 28, 2008
HERBERT SOLAS, petitioner, vs. POWER & TELEPHONE SUPPLY PHILS., INC., DERWIN OTWELL, PELAGIO BATTUNG, JR. AND FRANKLIN QUIACHON, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Herbert Solas was employed as Assistant Sales Manager by respondent Power & Telephone Supply Phils., Inc. In November 1998, he received P85,418.00, which the company characterized as a one-time bonus but which he claimed was a sales commission. From July 1998 onward, he received no further similar payments. In February 2000, after his request for the release of accumulated commissions was denied and he was ordered to settle an outstanding company loan, he was directed to return company property. He also did not receive his salary for February 2000, which the company applied as offset for his debts. Claiming constructive dismissal and non-payment of a 10% sales commission on gross sales, Solas filed a complaint before the Labor Arbiter.
The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Solas, awarding sales commissions, backwages, separation pay, and attorney’s fees. On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the decision. The NLRC found no constructive dismissal, noting Solas had filed an indefinite sick leave, not a resignation, and that the salary offset for his loan was valid. It also ruled he failed to prove the existence of an agreement for a 10% sales commission. The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC’s decision.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the NLRC’s findings that: (1) the petitioner was not constructively dismissed; and (2) the petitioner failed to substantiate his claim for a 10% sales commission.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the rulings of the NLRC and the Court of Appeals. On the first issue, the Court upheld the finding of no constructive dismissal. Constructive dismissal requires a clear act of discrimination, insensibility, or disdain by the employer that renders continued employment intolerable. The evidence showed Solas himself filed for an indefinite sick leave. The company’s memoranda were legitimate directives for him to explain his unauthorized absences and return company assets. The withholding of his February 2000 salary was a valid application of his wages to liquidate a substantial debt owed to the company, not an act of harassment indicative of dismissal.
On the second issue, the Court ruled that Solas failed to discharge the burden of proof to establish his entitlement to the claimed 10% sales commission. While he presented a certificate of employment and evidence of a past payment of P85,418.00, these were insufficient. The certificate did not detail any commission agreement, and the past payment was credibly explained by the company as a discretionary bonus. His primary evidence was a self-serving computation of alleged commissions lacking any authentic supporting documents, such as sales contracts or company records, to verify the claimed sales and agreed percentage. Claims for monetary benefits must be proved by substantial evidence; vague and self-serving assertions cannot suffice. Therefore, the NLRC and CA committed no grave abuse of discretion in dismissing his claims.