- Petitioner
- Oscar Adorado Casiple
- Respondent
- Greyhounds Security & Investigation Agency
- Citation
- G.R. No. 224698
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Decided
- June 17, 2020
Whether petitioner's resignation constituted constructive dismissal or was voluntary resignation
Summary
Security guard Oscar Casiple resigned from Greyhounds Security Agency citing hostility from management and subsequently filed for constructive dismissal. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint, but the NLRC reversed and awarded substantial damages. The Court of Appeals reversed the NLRC, finding no constructive dismissal. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Casiple failed to prove his resignation was involuntary. The Court established that mere verbal reprimands, even harsh ones, do not constitute constructive dismissal when based on legitimate performance issues. The decision reinforced that employees claiming constructive dismissal must prove with clear, positive, and convincing evidence that their resignation was coerced, and that the employer's conduct must be so unbearable as to foreclose any choice except resignation. This case clarifies the high evidentiary standard required for constructive dismissal claims and the distinction between voluntary resignation and forced resignation in Philippine labor law.
Focus of dispute
Whether petitioner's resignation constituted constructive dismissal or was voluntary resignation
Legal facts
Oscar Casiple was employed as security guard by Greyhounds Security & Investigation Agency from September 18, 2006. Posted at Y Tower 2 buildings in Binondo and Makati. In March 2013, reported for staying at driver's quarters watching TV or sleeping during duty. General Manager Quiletorio verbally reprimanded him with words like 'god dammit,' 'wala kang alam,' 'di ka bagay sa posisyon mo,' and 'saan ka ba nagtraining?' On October 21, 2013, issued notice to explain for staying overnight at client's premises while off-duty. On October 25, 2013, Casiple submitted resignation letter citing hostility from General Manager. Almost two months later, filed complaint for constructive/illegal dismissal.
Judgement and reasoning
Court of Appeals (CA): Reversed and set aside NLRC decision, affirmed LA decision. Found no evidence of constructive dismissal and that resignation was voluntary.
Labor Arbiter (LA): Dismissed the complaint for illegal dismissal but directed respondent to pay complainant 13th month pay for 2013 in the amount of P13,500.00, finding no constructive dismissal.
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC): Reversed and set aside LA decision. Found constructive dismissal and ordered payment of backwages (P180,000.00), separation pay (P120,000.00), 13th month pay (P13,500.00), moral damages (P30,000.00), exemplary damages (P30,000.00), and attorney's fees (P37,350.00).
Supreme Court (SC): Affirmed CA decision, denied petition for review. Found that petitioner voluntarily resigned and failed to prove constructive dismissal with clear, positive, and convincing evidence. Held that alleged verbal scolding cannot be described as utter display of disdain considering petitioner's serious lapse in duty performance. No bad faith or malicious design established to make working environment unbearable.