G.R. No. 191053; November 28, 2011
MARIO B. DIMAGAN, Petitioner, vs. DACWORKS UNITED, INCORPORATED and/or DEAN A. CANCINO, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Mario B. Dimagan, a stockholder of respondent DACWORKS UNITED, INC., started working for the company in July 1997 as Officer-in-Charge (OIC) for mechanical installation. In 2002, he was downgraded to supervisor, and in March 2003, he was made to work as a mere technician. Upon voicing his concerns, he was told by Loida Aquino, under the supervision of respondent Dean A. Cancino, not to report for work anymore. He was later castigated by Operations Manager Carlito Diaz for not following the instruction to work as a technician. This prompted petitioner to file a complaint for illegal dismissal and non-payment of various benefits.
Respondents denied illegal dismissal, arguing that from April 4, 2003, petitioner never reported for work and was on absence without official leave (AWOL). They claimed to have sent four memoranda from August 2002 to March 2003 informing him of his offenses, including AWOL, but he refused to return. Petitioner denied receiving any memoranda.
The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of petitioner, ordering his reinstatement with full backwages, finding his relegation from OIC to technician was meant to humiliate him and constituted constructive dismissal. The NLRC affirmed this decision. Respondents filed a motion for reconsideration, which petitioner alleged was fraudulently mailed, as evidenced by a Postmaster Certification showing no record of its mailing on the claimed date. The NLRC denied the motion for lack of merit but directed respondents to comment on the mailing allegation, which they did.
Respondents then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA reversed the NLRC, finding no evidence of actual or constructive dismissal, such as demotion in rank or diminution of salaries and benefits. It also held that since the NLRC did not categorically rule on the mailing manipulation issue after respondents’ explanation, the motion for reconsideration was deemed timely filed. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

1. Whether respondents are guilty of forum shopping for alleged non-compliance with certification requirements and failure to disclose the pending NLRC investigation on mail tampering.
2. Whether petitioner was illegally dismissed, either actually or constructively.

RULING

1. On Forum Shopping: The Court found respondents not guilty of forum shopping. The elements of forum shopping—identity of parties, rights asserted, and reliefs prayed for founded on the same facts—were not present. The pending NLRC investigation on mail tampering was merely incidental and its resolution would not amount to res judicata in the CA petition. The certification on forum shopping attached to respondents’ CA petition substantially complied with the rules.
2. On Illegal Dismissal: The Court ruled that petitioner was constructively dismissed. Constructive dismissal exists when an act of clear discrimination, insensibility, or disdain by an employer renders the employee’s continued work intolerable, forcing resignation. Petitioner’s demotion from OIC to supervisor and then to ordinary technician, without evidence of valid cause or due process, constituted constructive dismissal. The reassignment to a mere technician was a demotion in rank and a humiliation, especially given his status as a stockholder. The immediate filing of the complaint negated any claim of abandonment. The CA erred in reversing the NLRC’s findings. The NLRC’s factual findings, when supported by substantial evidence, are accorded respect and finality. The Labor Arbiter’s decision ordering reinstatement with full backwages, computed from the time compensation was withheld until actual reinstatement under Article 279 of the Labor Code, was reinstated.