G.R. No. 231859 , February 19, 2020
GERARDO C. ROXAS, PETITIONER, VS. BALIWAG TRANSIT, INC. AND/OR JOSELITO S. TENGCO (OWNER), RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioner Gerardo C. Roxas was employed as a bus driver by respondent Baliwag Transit, Inc. (BTI) since 1998, paid on commission. In 2012, his assigned bus was phased out per LTFRB Resolution, making him a reliever driver and reducing his work assignment from three weeks to two weeks per month. On June 5, 2014, Roxas filed a complaint for constructive dismissal and other money claims. On July 2, 2014, he was called for a duty assignment but informed BTI’s personnel of his NLRC hearing; he was warned of abandonment and later received a notice to explain his absence. His first complaint was dismissed for improper venue. On February 16, 2015, he re-filed the complaint (second complaint). After this, he received a notice from BTI charging him for indiscriminate filing of labor cases. Roxas claimed he was no longer given work assignments thereafter, constituting constructive dismissal. BTI denied dismissal, alleging Roxas was a disgruntled employee who refused to explain his actions and committed insubordination and abandonment. On July 21, 2015, BTI issued a notice of termination against Roxas for gross misconduct, insubordination, and AWOL. The Labor Arbiter dismissed Roxas’s complaint, a ruling affirmed by the NLRC. The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC but modified the decision by ordering BTI to pay Roxas P30,000.00 in nominal damages due to procedural defects in the termination process.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in sustaining the finding that there was no constructive dismissal committed by respondents and that Roxas’s subsequent termination from work was valid.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition. It found that Roxas was constructively dismissed. The reduction of his work assignment from three weeks to two weeks per month constituted a demotion in rank and a diminution of pay and benefits, rendering his continued employment unreasonable. This unilateral change by BTI, even if allegedly due to a government regulation, was not sufficiently proven to apply uniformly to all employees and effectively breached the existing Collective Bargaining Agreement and company policies. The Court held that a reasonable person in Roxas’s position would have felt compelled to resign under these circumstances. Consequently, the procedural infirmities in his subsequent termination were rendered moot. Roxas was declared illegally dismissed and entitled to reinstatement and full backwages.