G.R. No. 244388 , March 03, 2021
Jayraldin F. Ebus, Petitioner, vs. The Results Company, Inc., Michael Kalaw, Sherra De Guzman, Summer Dombrowski, Jay Morente and Francis Lacuna, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Jayraldin Ebus was an employee of respondent The Results Company, Inc. (TRCI), a business process outsourcing company, hired in 2012 and promoted to Team Leader by 2014. On December 30, 2014, Ebus received an email concerning an infraction by his subordinate, Ruby De Leon. While other managers recommended coaching for De Leon, Operations Manager Summer Dombrowski insisted on a final written warning. Ebus issued a Notice to Explain to De Leon but awaited his immediate supervisor’s recommendation on the sanction. Subsequently, TRCI issued a Notice to Explain with Preventive Suspension to Ebus for alleged acts inimical to the company, placing him under a 30-day preventive suspension. After administrative proceedings, TRCI issued a Notice of Decision on February 9, 2015, admonishing Ebus with a warning for insubordination. Concurrently, the HR Department issued a Redeployment Notice placing Ebus on Temporary Lay-Off (TLO) until reassigned to another account, a period not exceeding six months, during which he would receive no compensation. Ebus filed a complaint for constructive dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled in his favor, finding constructive dismissal. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the decision, upholding TRCI’s actions as valid management prerogatives. The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC’s decision.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in concluding that Ebus was not constructively dismissed.

RULING

The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition. The Court held that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion, and the CA erred in affirming it. The Redeployment Notice placing Ebus on Temporary Lay-Off (TLO) without compensation for up to six months, with his reassignment contingent on requalification, constituted constructive dismissal. This indefinite “floating status” effectively severed his employment, as it was not a bona fide suspension but a dismissal in disguise. The transfer/re-profiling was not a valid exercise of management prerogative because it was not based on legitimate business needs but was a punitive measure following a disciplinary action. The Court found that the act of placing Ebus on TLO was a constructive dismissal, as it rendered his employment status vague and indefinite, compelling him to leave his employment.