FACTS:

The petitioner in this case is a ground handling company and the respondent is a ramp supervisor who was terminated for frequently being late. The respondent received a memorandum from the petitioner, stating that he was frequently late and directing him to adhere to company rules on attendance. Subsequently, the respondent received a notice of termination for failing to improve his attendance record. The respondent then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, claiming constructive dismissal due to unreasonable standards and unjust penalties imposed by the petitioner. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the respondent, ordering his reinstatement with back wages. On appeal, the NLRC reversed the decision and held that the respondent's frequent tardiness justified his termination. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the NLRC, prompting the respondent to file a petition for review before the Supreme Court.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the temporary withholding of facilities and privileges during an ongoing investigation is justified.

2. Whether the preventive suspension of an employee is valid.

3. Whether the employer has the right to regulate and impose disciplinary actions on its employees.

4. Whether the respondent was harassed or coerced during the interview.

5. Whether respondent's subsequent hospitalization proves harassment or coercion.

6. Whether the discomfort and difficulty experienced by the respondent during the investigation prove petitioner's malice.

7. Whether it was reasonable for the petitioner to involve the respondent in the investigation of the discovered anomalies.

8. Whether the respondent's preemptive resignation and refusal to cooperate in the investigation constitute constructive dismissal.

9. Whether there is constructive dismissal in the case at bar.

10. Whether the petitioner was forced to admit the commission of a crime during the investigation.

11. Whether the petitioner was compelled to give up her employment due to unfounded, unreasonable, and improper accusations made by the respondent.

12. Whether the petitioner is entitled to backwages, unpaid salary differential, and damages.

RULING:

1. Yes, the temporary withholding of facilities and privileges during an ongoing investigation is justified. It is upheld as an incident of the investigation, as long as it is done in good faith and for the advancement of the employer's interest.

2. Yes, the preventive suspension of an employee is valid as long as it is not imposed as a penalty but as a means to enable unhampered investigation and to prevent serious threats to the employer or co-workers.

3. Yes, the employer has the right to regulate all aspects of employment, including work assignment, discipline, and dismissal, as long as it is exercised in good faith and not to defeat or circumvent the rights of the employees under special laws or valid agreements.

4. The Court held that there was no sufficient evidence to support respondent's claim of harassment or coercion during the interview. There was no independent verification of the respondent's allegations, and her recollection was subjective and unsupported by facts.

5. The Court ruled that respondent's hospitalization does not prove harassment or coercion. While it shows that she was stressed, it does not necessarily mean that she was stressed specifically because she was coerced into admitting wrongdoing.

6. The Court concluded that the discomfort and difficulty experienced by the respondent during the investigation were normal burdens that come with cooperating in an investigation, and they do not prove petitioner's malice.

7. The petitioner was reasonable in involving the respondent in the investigation because of her role as an accounting clerk and her direct interactions with the implicated individuals.

8. While the Court cannot surmise that the respondent was truly complicit in the anomalies, her preemptive resignation and refusal to cooperate in the investigation cannot be condoned. It would render legitimate measures to address employee misconduct futile and discourage bona fide investigations.

9. Yes, there is constructive dismissal in the case at bar. Constructive dismissal is defined as a quitting because continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable, or unlikely, and it can occur when there is a demotion in rank or a diminution of pay. The test of constructive dismissal is whether a reasonable person in the employee's position would have felt compelled to give up his position under the circumstances. It is an act amounting to dismissal but is made to appear as if it were not. The law protects employees from coercive acts by employers. In this case, the petitioner was forced to admit the commission of a crime during an investigation, causing her to suffer from depression and a nervous breakdown. This constituted constructive dismissal.

10. Yes, the petitioner was forced to admit the commission of a crime during the investigation. The petitioner narrated that during the investigation, she was coerced by the officers of the company to admit her alleged participation in the offense. She vehemently opposed the accusations and even suffered from depression and a nervous breakdown. The evidence supports the fact that the petitioner was forced to admit the commission of a crime during the investigation.

11. Yes, the petitioner was compelled to give up her employment due to unfounded, unreasonable, and improper accusations made by the respondent.

12. Yes, the petitioner is entitled to backwages, unpaid salary differential, and damages.

PRINCIPLES:

• Employers can temporarily withhold facilities and privileges during an ongoing investigation.

• Preventive suspension can be imposed to enable unhampered investigation and prevent threats.

• Employers have the right to regulate and impose disciplinary actions on employees, as long as it is done in good faith and not to defeat their rights under special laws or valid agreements.

• Constructive dismissal occurs when an employer's act becomes so unbearable that it forces the employee to resign.

• Inconvenience, disruption, difficulties, and occasional discomforts do not sustain a finding of constructive dismissal.

• Resolving allegations of constructive dismissal involves weighing of evidence and considering the totality of circumstances.

• Judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings require proof and not mere possibilities.

• Subjective impressions and unsupported allegations cannot be accepted as evidence.

• Stress is a natural response to difficult situations, and different individuals react to stress differently.

• Discomfort and difficulty experienced during an investigation are normal burdens and do not necessarily indicate malice on the part of the employer.

• Proper referral to official channels for conducting investigations demonstrates willingness to follow due process and does not indicate malice.

• In employee investigations, an employee's preemption of the investigation can be seen as a badge of guilt.

• Employees cannot preemptively defeat investigations and claim constructive dismissal to avoid the consequences of their misconduct.

• Constructive dismissal occurs when continued employment becomes impossible, unreasonable, or unlikely.

• The test of constructive dismissal is whether a reasonable person in the employee's position would have felt compelled to give up his position under the circumstances.

• Constructive dismissal is an act amounting to dismissal but is made to appear as if it were not.

• Employees are protected from coercive acts by employers.

• Coercing an employee to admit the commission of a crime during an investigation constitutes constructive dismissal.

• The unfounded and unreasonable accusations by the employer may render employment unbearable and compel the employee to resign.

• The Labor Arbiter has the authority to award backwages, unpaid salary differential, and damages to an employee who has been compelled to give up their employment due to the employer's actions.