View full case

LOURDES C. RODRIGUEZ v. PARK N RIDE INC. ET AL.

FACTS:

Lourdes Rodriguez filed a complaint against Park N Ride, Vicest Phils., Grand Leisure, and the Javier Spouses for constructive illegal dismissal and non-payment of benefits. Rodriguez claimed to have been employed as a Restaurant Supervisor at Vicest Phils. and was later transferred to office work. She alleged long hours of work without receiving service incentive leave pay. Rodriguez resigned on March 25, 2009, but the Javier Spouses did not accept it. She eventually submitted another resignation letter on September 26, 2009, which was accepted on October 6, 2009.

Rodriguez did not report for work on September 23, 2009, and did not provide any explanation. A letter was sent to her on September 26, 2009, citing her unauthorized absence and informing her that her resignation could not be processed until she completed her employment clearance. Rodriguez did not reply nor report for work on September 30, 2009. It was discovered that Rodriguez had unliquidated cash advances and had deposited checks into her personal account. Labor Arbiter Macam ruled that Rodriguez's resignation was voluntary and dismissed her complaint. The National Labor Relations Commission initially ruled in favor of Rodriguez but later reversed its decision on the motion for reconsideration of the Javier Spouses. Rodriguez filed a petition before the Court of Appeals, which held that there was no constructive dismissal, but rather Rodriguez voluntarily resigned. Her motion for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the petitioner was constructively dismissed from her employment.

  2. Whether the petitioner was terminated or constructively dismissed.

  3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to moral and exemplary damages.

  4. Whether the petitioner is entitled to service incentive leave pay for the years 2006 to 2009.

  5. When does the prescriptive period for the claim of service incentive leave pay accrue?

  6. Has the claim for service incentive leave pay prescribed?

RULING:

  1. The National Labor Relations Commission did not commit a grave abuse of discretion in finding that petitioner was not constructively dismissed but voluntarily resigned from employment. The affidavits of petitioner's former co-workers showed the trust and confidence reposed by respondents on petitioner, and the resignation letters and petitioner's failure to report for work further reinforced her intent to relinquish her position. The Court found no evidence of unreasonably harsh conditions that would compel resignation.

  2. The petitioner was neither terminated nor constructively dismissed. There was no showing of bad faith or malicious design by the respondents that would make her work conditions unbearable. The circumstances in the case negate the presence of a hostile work atmosphere.

  3. The petitioner is not entitled to moral and exemplary damages because she was not illegally dismissed.

  4. The petitioner is entitled to service incentive leave pay for the years 2006 to 2009. Private respondents were also employing less than 10 employees, thus the award of service incentive leave pay to the petitioner was proper. However, the prescriptive period for service incentive leave pay should not be limited to three years. The petitioner should be entitled to the commutation of her accrued service incentive leave upon her resignation or separation from work, as provided by the Labor Code. To limit the award to three years unduly restricts the right of the petitioner.

  5. The cause of action for the claim of service incentive leave pay accrues when the employer refuses to pay its monetary equivalent after demand of commutation or upon termination of the employee's services.

  6. The claim for service incentive leave pay has not prescribed because the petitioner filed her complaint within the prescriptive period.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

  • Factual findings of the Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission, if supported by substantial evidence and when upheld by the Court of Appeals, are binding and conclusive upon the Supreme Court when there is no cogent reason to disturb such findings.

  • Constructive dismissal exists when an employer's act of clear discrimination, insensibility, or disdain becomes so unbearable on the part of the employee, forcing them to resign from employment.

  • The standard for constructive dismissal is whether a reasonable person in the employee's position would have felt compelled to give up their employment under the circumstances.

  • The unreasonably harsh conditions that compel resignation must be way beyond the occasional discomforts brought about by misunderstandings between the employer and employee.

  • Strong words from the employer that demean the dignity of the employee may create a hostile work environment.

  • Resignation letters containing words of gratitude and the failure to report for work despite directives can indicate voluntary resignation.

  • The intent to relinquish a position is manifest when an employee submits letters of resignation and fails to report for work.

  • Utterances from the employer that are a consequence of spontaneous outbursts of feelings rather than acts to force resignation may not be sufficient to make the continued employment of the employee impossible, unreasonable, or unlikely.

  • Spontaneous expressions of an employer do not automatically render a hostile work atmosphere.

  • Service incentive leave pay is a right that accrues to every employee who has served at least one year, and it is commutable to its monetary equivalent if not used or exhausted at the end of the year. The prescriptive period for service incentive leave pay should not be limited to three years.

  • The cause of action for the claim of service incentive leave pay accrues when the employer refuses to pay its monetary equivalent after demand of commutation or upon termination of the employee's services.

  • The prescriptive period for the claim of service incentive leave pay does not commence at the end of the year when the employee becomes entitled to its commutation but from the time when the employer refuses to pay its monetary equivalent after demand of commutation or upon termination of the employee's services.

  • In the implementation and interpretation of the provisions of the Labor Code, the workingman's welfare should be the primordial and paramount consideration.

  • The policy is to extend the applicability of the decree to a greater number of employees who can avail of the benefits under the law, in consonance with the avowed policy of the State to give maximum aid and protection to labor.