G.R. No. 164804 & G.R. No. 164784; January 30, 2009.
VIRGINIA A. SUGUE and THE HEIRS OF RENATO S. VALDERRAMA, Petitioners, vs. TRIUMPH INTERNATIONAL (PHILS.), INC., Respondent. / TRIUMPH INTERNATIONAL (PHILS.), INC., Petitioner, vs. VIRGINIA A. SUGUE and THE HEIRS OF RENATO S. VALDERRAMA, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Virginia Sugue and Renato Valderrama were high-ranking employees of respondent Triumph International (Phils.), Inc. (Triumph). Sugue was Marketing Services Manager, and Valderrama was Direct Sales Manager. In June 2000, they filed a complaint against Triumph for unpaid monetary benefits. On June 19, 2000, they attended a preliminary conference for that case. The next day, Triumph issued memoranda questioning their absence from the office during work hours without notifying the Managing Director. Their explanation that they attended the NLRC hearing was not accepted, and Triumph charged their absence to their vacation leave credits. Subsequently, Valderrama’s requests for an executive check-up and sick leave were disapproved. On July 10, 2000, Triumph required Valderrama to explain his department’s poor sales performance. On July 17, 2000, Valderrama wrote that he considered himself constructively dismissed. On July 25, 2000, Sugue also wrote that she considered herself constructively dismissed, citing as reasons the conditional approval of her vacation leave, the deferral of her executive check-up, and an instruction to report to a former assistant after a reorganization. Triumph later issued memoranda requiring them to explain their continued absences and, due to their failure to respond, terminated them for abandonment of work on August 11, 2000 (Valderrama) and September 1, 2000 (Sugue). Prior to their termination, on July 31, 2000, they filed a complaint for constructive dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled in their favor, awarding separation pay, backwages, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees. The NLRC reversed this decision. The Court of Appeals partly granted Sugue and Valderrama’s appeal, reinstating the Labor Arbiter’s finding of constructive dismissal but deleting the attorney’s fees and reducing the moral and exemplary damages. Both parties filed petitions for review.

ISSUE

Whether or not petitioners Virginia Sugue and Renato Valderrama were constructively dismissed by respondent Triumph International (Phils.), Inc.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court ruled that petitioners were constructively dismissed. Constructive dismissal exists when an act of clear discrimination, insensibility, or disdain by an employer has become so unbearable that it leaves the employee with no choice but to forego continued employment. The Court found that Triumph’s acts of charging their NLRC hearing attendance to vacation leave, disapproving leave requests, requiring explanations for poor performance, and reassigning Sugue to report to a former subordinate, when taken together, constituted a pattern of harassment that made working conditions intolerable. These acts were unreasonable and indicative of Triumph’s intent to force petitioners to resign. The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision, reinstating the Labor Arbiter’s award of separation pay and backwages (with modification for Valderrama’s backwages to stop when he started working for a competitor), and the reduced awards of moral and exemplary damages. The deletion of attorney’s fees was also affirmed.