GR 185549; (August, 2013) (Digest)
G.R. No. 185549; August 7, 2013
VICENTE ANG, PETITIONER, vs. CEFERINO SAN JOAQUIN, JR., AND DIOSDADO FERNANDEZ, RESPONDENTS.
FACTS
Petitioner Vicente Ang, proprietor of Virose Furniture, employed respondents Ceferino San Joaquin, Jr. and Diosdado Fernandez as regular workers. On August 24, 1999, respondents testified against Ang in criminal cases filed by a former employee concerning non-remittance of SSS contributions. Ang subsequently treated them with hostility. On August 30, 1999, San Joaquin discovered Ang had torn his daily time record (DTR) to pieces; Fernandez’s DTR had been similarly destroyed immediately after the hearing. That same day, Fernandez received a vague suspension memo for insubordination. Respondents filed complaints for illegal constructive dismissal.
Ang contended the respondents were dismissed for cause due to disrespect, disobedience, and abandonment. He issued subsequent memoranda, including a termination notice for San Joaquin on September 21, 1999, alleging refusal to obey work instructions. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint, but the NLRC reversed, finding constructive dismissal. The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC.
ISSUE
Whether the act of the employer in tearing the employees’ time cards constitutes constructive dismissal.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the finding of constructive dismissal. The legal logic centers on the employer’s overt act of tearing the DTRs, which the Court deemed an outright termination of the employment relationship, not merely a symbolic one. This act, occurring immediately after the employees testified against their employer, demonstrated a clear intent to sever the employer-employee bond. It rendered continued employment impossible, as the destroyed DTRs were essential for recording work hours and processing wages.
The Court rejected Ang’s defense that the subsequent memoranda justified termination for cause. It ruled these were mere afterthoughts designed to conceal the unlawful dismissal already effected by the destruction of the time cards. The strained relations, precipitated by the employer’s retaliatory act, made reinstatement impracticable. Consequently, respondents were entitled to full backwages and separation pay in lieu of reinstatement. The employer’s unilateral act of destroying the very instrument documenting employment conclusively established a discharge without just or authorized cause, violating security of tenure.