G.R. No. 175365 ; October 23, 2013
CANDIDO S. GEMINA JR., Petitioner, vs. BANKWISE INC., LAZARO LL. MADARA, PERFECTO M. PASCUA and OSMENIO R. GALAPATE, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Candido S. Gemina Jr. was hired by respondent Bankwise as a Marketing Officer with a stipulated fund level commitment of ₱100 million for the first six months. After nearly five months, his performance was deemed the lowest in his group, having generated only about ₱2.9 million in deposits. Bankwise officers called his attention and sternly warned him about this breach of his contractual obligation. Gemina subsequently went on an 11-day leave. Upon his return, he alleged experiencing harassment, including delays in salary release and a demand to return his company vehicle, which he claimed forced him out of employment.
Bankwise countered that the salary delays were due to administrative processes to verify his leave credits and that the demand for the vehicle’s return was a standard procedure given his prolonged absence. The bank asserted that after his leave, Gemina incurred unauthorized absences, failed to report for work, and refused to heed management’s directives to return the vehicle and explain his absences, leading them to conclude he had abandoned his job.

ISSUE

Whether the petitioner was constructively dismissed or whether he abandoned his employment.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that Gemina was not constructively dismissed but had abandoned his employment. The legal logic hinges on the burden of proof in dismissal cases and the definition of constructive dismissal. Constructive dismissal requires a clear showing of acts by the employer intended to force the employee to resign, rendering continued work impossible, unreasonable, or unlikely. The Court found Gemina’s evidence of harassment—primarily salary delays and the vehicle recall—insubstantial.
The salary delays were justified by the bank’s legitimate need to verify his leave credits, and the vehicle recall was a reasonable measure following his unexplained absences. Conversely, the bank established that Gemina, after being warned about his poor performance, absented himself without official leave and failed to report back to work or comply with lawful orders, demonstrating a clear intention to sever the employment relationship. Since abandonment is a voluntary act, and Gemina failed to prove the alleged harassment was so severe as to constitute a constructive discharge, his claim failed. The Court affirmed the findings of the NLRC and the Court of Appeals that he abandoned his post.