G.R. No.
154503 February 29, 2008
UNIWIDE SALES WAREHOUSE CLUB AND VIVIAN M. APDUHAN, petitioners
VS
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND AMALIA P. KAWADA, respondents
FACTS:
Amalia P. Kawada (private respondent) started her employment with Uniwide as a saleslady. Over the years, she
attained the rank of Full Assistant Store Manager.
Kawada claims that from the months of February to June 1998, she had been subjected to constant harassment,
ridicule and inhumane treatment by Apduhan, with the hope that the latter can get the private respondent to
resign. The harassment allegedly came in the form of successive memoranda which private respondent would
receive almost every week, enumerating a litany of offenses and maligning her reputation and spreading rumors
among the employees that private respondent shall be dismissed soon. The last straw of the imputed harassment was
the July 31, 1998 incident wherein private respondents life was put in danger when she lost consciousness due to
hypertension as a result of Apduhans alleged hostility and shouting.
On August 3, 1998, Private respondent filed a case for illegal dismissal before the Labor Arbiter.
On August 8, 1998, Apduhan sent a letter addressed to private respondent, which the latter received on even date,
advising private respondent to report for work, as she had been absent since August 1, 1998; and warning her that
upon her failure to do so, she shall be considered to have abandoned her job.
On September 1, 1998, Apduhan issued a Memorandum stating that since private respondent was unable to attend the
scheduled August 12, 1998 hearing, the case was evaluated on the basis of the evidence on record; and enumerating
the pieces of evidence of the irregularities and violations of company rules committed by private respondent, the latters
defenses and the corresponding findings by Uniwide.
Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of merit.
NLRC ruled in favor of respondent, reversing the Labor Arbiter. Kawada is declared constructively dismissed.
CA affirmed in toto the NLRC Decision.
ISSUES:
Whether or not private respondent was constructively dismissed.
RULING:
No. Private respondents bare allegations of constructive dismissal, when uncorroborated by the evidence on
record, cannot be given credence.
The test of constructive dismissal is whether a reasonable person in the employees position would have felt
compelled to give up his position under the circumstances. It is an act amounting to dismissal but made to appear as
if it were not. In fact, the employee who is constructively dismissed may be allowed to keep on coming to
work. Constructive dismissal is therefore a dismissal in disguise. The law recognizes and resolves this situation in
favor of employees in order to protect their rights and interests from the coercive acts of the employer.
The sending of several memoranda addressed to a managerial or supervisory employee concerning various
violations of company rules and regulations, committed on different occasions, are not unusual. The alleged
February to June 1998 series of memoranda given by petitioners to private respondent asking the latter to explain the
alleged irregular acts should not be construed as a form of harassment but merely an exercise of managements
prerogative to discipline its employees.
The right to impose disciplinary sanctions upon an employee for just and valid cause, as well as the
authority to determine the existence of said cause in accordance with the norms of due process, pertains in the first
place to the employer. Precisely, petitioners gave private respondent successive memoranda so as to give the latter an
opportunity to controvert the charges against her. Clearly, the memoranda are not forms of harassment, but petitioners
compliance with the requirements of due process.
The July 31, 1998 confrontation where Apduhan allegedly shouted at private respondent which caused the
latters hypertension to recur and eventually caused her to collapse cannot by itself support a finding of constructive
dismissal by the NLRC and the CA. Even if true, the act of Apduhan in shouting at private respondent was an
isolated outburst on the part of Apduhan that did not show a clear discrimination or insensibility that would render
the working condition of private respondent unbearable.
The Court agrees with the findings of the LA that the termination of private respondent was grounded on the
existence of just cause under Article 282 (c) of the Labor Code or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed
on him by his employer or a duly authorized representative.
Private respondent occupies a managerial position. As a managerial employee, mere existence of a basis for
believing that such employee has breached the trust of his employer would suffice for his dismissal.
In order to give private respondent an opportunity to explain the several violations of company rules she
allegedly committed, private respondent was given several memoranda, to which she initially responded. Also, to
give private respondent an opportunity to be heard, defend herself, confront the witnesses against her as well as to
present her own evidence, Apduhan scheduled a hearing on August 12, 1998, notice of which was sent on August 2,
1998 and duly received by private respondents husband on the same day. This fact alone would have indicated to
private respondent that there was no intention on the part of petitioners to effect her constructive dismissal. However,
private respondent opted to file the complaint for illegal dismissal the next day; and not to attend the scheduled
hearing on August 12, 1998. Thus, petitioners were justified to decide the case on the basis of the records at hand.
The irregularities and offenses committed by private respondent, corroborated by the various pieces of
evidence supporting such charges, i.e. records, reports and testimonies of Uniwide employees, in the mind of the
Court, constitute substantial evidence that private respondent is in fact responsible for the alleged charges.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated November 23, 2001 and Resolution
dated July 23, 2002 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 64581 together with the Decision dated December
27, 2000 of the National Labor Relations Commission are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The complaint of private
respondent Amalia P. Kawada is DISMISSED. SO ORDERED.
