G.R. No. 176700 ; September 4, 2009
ROMERO MONTEDERAMOS, Petitioner, vs. TRI-UNION INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Romero Montederamos was a stockman for respondent Tri-Union International Corporation. In June 2003, respondent suspended petitioner for one month effective July 1, 2003, citing habitual tardiness, refusal to explain his infractions, and insubordination. On July 2, 2003, petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, claiming that the suspension was a pretext. He alleged that respondent had earlier asked him to sign a fixed-term contract despite his regular status and had deliberately denied his request for a letter of introduction needed to renew his Metro Ayala ID, thereby effectively terminating his employment.
Respondent maintained the suspension was disciplinary and lawful. A memorandum dated July 31, 2003, advised petitioner that his suspension ended that day and instructed him to report for work on August 11, 2003. Petitioner never reported back. The Labor Arbiter found no illegal dismissal or abandonment, ordering reinstatement without backwages but granting service incentive leave pay. The NLRC reversed, finding illegal dismissal. The Court of Appeals reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s decision.

ISSUE

Whether petitioner was illegally dismissed, either actually or constructively, by the respondent corporation.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition, upholding the Court of Appeals and finding no illegal dismissal. The legal logic centers on the absence of a dismissal act by the employer and the failure to establish constructive dismissal. An employee claiming constructive dismissal must prove that the employer’s conduct amounted to a clear act of discrimination, insensibility, or disdain, rendering continued employment intolerable. Here, the one-month suspension was a disciplinary action for admitted infractions, not a dismissal. Critically, respondent explicitly directed petitioner to return to work after his suspension. Petitioner’s unilateral decision not to report constituted abandonment, not dismissal.
The Court rejected the claim of constructive dismissal based on the denied request for an ID renewal letter. This occurred before the suspension took effect and was not shown to be an act of discrimination meant to force resignation. Respondent’s subsequent offer of reinstatement further negated any intent to sever employment. Petitioner’s claim for overtime pay was denied for lack of proof, but the award of service incentive leave pay was affirmed due to respondent’s lack of documentary evidence proving settlement.