G.R. No. 179174, December 24, 2008
Reynaldo Madrigalejos, petitioner, vs. Geminilou Trucking Service, Liberty Galotera, Edmundo Galotera, and Matthew Galotera, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Reynaldo Madrigalejos was hired by respondents as a truck driver, paid P400.00 per trip, making four trips a day. He claimed that on November 18, 2004, respondents requested him to sign a contract titled “Kasunduan Sa Pag-Upa ng Serbisyo,” which he refused because he believed it would alter his status from a regular employee to a contractual one and contained a waiver of accrued benefits. Petitioner averred that due to his refusal, his services were terminated effective November 28, 2004. He filed a complaint for constructive dismissal, along with claims for various monetary benefits. Respondents denied dismissal, asserting that petitioner unilaterally stopped reporting for work after a fellow driver filed a complaint against him with the Sangguniang Barangay for an alleged knife attack. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of petitioner, declaring illegal dismissal and ordering reinstatement with backwages. The NLRC reversed this decision, finding no termination and directing petitioner to report back to work. The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC’s ruling, prompting petitioner to elevate the case to the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that petitioner was not constructively dismissed from his employment.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition, upholding the findings of the NLRC and the Court of Appeals. The Court held that petitioner failed to substantiate his claim of constructive dismissal with substantial evidence. The lone piece of evidence presented was an unsigned copy of the “Kasunduan,” which was insufficient to meet the required quantum of proof. Constructive dismissal requires a showing that continued employment became impossible, unreasonable, or unlikely due to demotion, diminution in pay, or unbearable employer discrimination. The test is whether a reasonable person in the employee’s position would have felt compelled to resign. The Court found that the appellate court did not err in sustaining respondents’ claim that petitioner was not dismissed but merely failed to report for work after an altercation with a co-driver, which was subject to barangay conciliation. Petitioner’s bare allegations were insufficient to support a finding of constructive dismissal.