G.R. No. 254465 – JONATHAN DY CHUA BARTOLOME, petitioner, vs. TOYOTA QUEZON AVENUE, INC., LINCOLN T. LIM, ESTEBAN DELA PAZ, JR., JOSEFINA DE JESUS, and PAULINE BACALING, respondents.

LAZARO-JAVIER, J.

Rule Synopsis

Acts of disdain and hostile behavior such as demotion, uttering insulting words, asking for resignation, and apathetic conduct toward an employee constitute constructive illegal dismissal whenever by reason thereof, one’s employment becomes so unbearable he or she is left with no choice except to resign. 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.

Facts

Jonathan Dy Chua Bartolome (Bartolome) was hired by Toyota Quezon Avenue, Inc. (TQAI) and was tasked with selling cars, products, and services.

In December 2015, Bartolome received various notices from the Human Resources Department, namely: Notice of Decision for Habitual Absences, Notice of Explanation for Habitual Absences, and a notice placing him under a seven-day suspension. In January 2016, Bartolome and the management had a meeting where he got assisted by his sibling as counsel.

The following events then took place:

1. In a subsequent marketing professionals’ meeting, TQAI President Lim uttered unsavory remarks against him for bringing his lawyer-sibling to the meeting.
2. Later, a leather cover seat was mistakenly included in a car whose sale was processed by Bartolome. He explained the incident to TQAI Group Retail Manager De Jesus and requested an investigation which the latter brushed off saying “[a]langan namang pati si Oda pagbayarin mo pa. Ano ba ang pinaglalaban mo?” De Jesus later paid for the same.
3. Many of his accounts were unceremoniously withdrawn and transferred to another marketing professional without any explanation. He protested but was again met with hostile remarks.
4. He tried to process a sale but was stopped by TQAI General Sales Manager Dela Paz, who refused to sign the vehicle sales proposal and informed him that he is not allowed to release for the client. Dela Paz refused to sign off subsequent sales proposals from Bartolome.
5. When transferred to a new team, his new boss, Susan Sobreviñas asked him “[a]no plano mo, magreresign ka?”
6. When asked by De Jesus to sign his 2015 Performance Scorecard, Bartolome raised certain concerns. A week after, he got back the scorecard which this time bore lower grades. He signed under protest.
7. Dela Paz pressured him to sign a memorandum accepting changes in his performance bonus.
8. Bartolome received a Memorandum asking him to explain why he failed to meet his sales quota for the month of February 2016.

The foregoing events allegedly made it impossible and unbearable for Bartolome to continue working for TQAI. Thus, he tendered his resignation letter effective April 30, 2016. He also alleged that he was unduly harassed when he tried processing his clearance, and that when he finally received his last salary, it was less than he was entitled to.

On August 2016, he filed a Complaint for illegal/constructive dismissal and money claims.

The Labor Arbiter found that Bartolome was constructively dismissed, which was affirmed by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). The Court of Appeals (CA), however, reversed NLRC’s ruling. The CA also denied the motion for reconsideration.

Issues

1. Was Bartolome constructively dismissed?
2. What awards should Bartolome be entitled to? And who should be held liable.

Ruling and Discussion

1. Yes. Bartolome was constructively dismissed.
   
   TQAI and its officers created a hostile working environment leading to Bartolome’s constructive dismissal.
   
   Acts of disdain and hostile behavior such as demotion, uttering insulting words, asking for resignation, and apathetic conduct toward an employee constitute constructive illegal dismissal whenever by reason thereof, one’s employment becomes so unbearable he or she is left with no choice except to resign. 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.
   
   Here, the following chain of events, which were not refuted by respondents, created a hostile working environment that made it impossible and unbearable for Bartolome to continue working for TQAI.
   
   1. During the marketing professionals’ meeting, TQAI President Lim humiliated and called Bartolome out for bringing his lawyer-sibling to his meeting with the management;
   
   2. Leather seats covers were wrongly installed in the car unit of his client, without any order from him. Bartolome asked for an investigation but the Group Retail Manager merely responded with a sarcastic remark, and the left the impression that Bartolome alone would be liable;
   
   3. Following his transfer to another group, many of his accounts were pulled out from him, without any explanation;
   
   4. When he tried to process one particular sale, the General Sales Manager refused to sign the vehicle sales proposal and warned him that he is not allowed to release for the said client;
   
   5. His new boss asked him point blank, “[a]no plano mo, magreresign ka?”
   
   6. The Group Retail Manager forced him to sign his 2015 Performance Scorecard. When the latter protested, the former retaliated with a scorecard bearing grades lower than what appeared on the scorecard he was initially forced to sign;
   
   7. He was required to explain why he failed to meet his sales quota for February 2016, although it was respondents themselves who pulled out many of his accounts.
   
   Bartolome also submitted documentary evidence to support his narrative.
   
   As substantial evidence, or “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion,” the detailed series of events supported by documentary evidence of petitioner must be given credence over the general denial of the respondents.
   
   Bartolome’s Letter of Resignation was involuntary and not genuine.
   
   Though the labor arbiter found nothing extraordinary about the resignation letter as it did not exactly indicate a tone of anger nor some sense of ingratitude, the circumstance before the resignation would show that he did not contemplate nor had any intention of resigning from the company were it not for respondents’ hostile and disdainful actions.
2. Bartolome is entitled to the award of: (a) separation pay; (b) full backwages; (c) moral and exemplary damages; (d) attorney’s fees; and (e) legal interest. The respondents are solidarily liable.
   
   An illegally dismissed employee is ordinarily entitled to: (a) reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges, or in lieu thereof, separation pay; and (b) full backwages inclusive of allowances and other benefits or their monetary equivalent.
   
   While reinstatement is a normal consequence of illegal dismissal, separation pay, in addition to backwages, equivalent to one month for every year of service should be awarded as an alternative where reinstatement is no longer viable as an option. Here, Bartolome is entitled to separation pay in lieu of reinstatement due to the parties’ strained relations.
   
   Moral damages are also recoverable when the dismissal of an employee is attended by bad faith or fraud or constitutes an act oppressive to labor or is done in a manner contrary to good morals, good customs, or public policy. Exemplary damages, on the other hand, are recoverable when the dismissal was done in a wanton, oppressive, or malevolent manner. Here, bad faith attended Bartolome’s constructive dismissal. The fact that the top officials of the TQAI followed the cue of their president sends a chilling effect on its current employees that they should not be trifled with. The concerted efforts of these top officials to force Bartolome into submission was done in an oppressive and wanton manner.
   
   Following both statutory and case law, Bartolome should be paid attorney’s fees equivalent to 10% of the total monetary award as he was forced to litigate and incur expenses to protect his rights and interests.
   
   Corporate officers are solidarily liable with the corporation for the termination of employment of employees, only if such is done with malice or in bad faith. Here, the top officials of TQAI was led by no less than its president, Lim, together with TQAI Group Retail Manager De Jesus, TQAI General Sales Manager Dela Paz, and Group Head Sobreviñas to force petitioner into submission. However, as Sobreviñas was not impleaded in the instant case, she cannot be held solidarily liable with respondents.

dispositive

Petition granted. Decision and Resolution of the CA reversed.