Briones, Christian Salvador T.

20140172378
Merck Sharp and Dohme (Philippines) and Peter S. Carbonell
Versus
Jonar P. Robles, George G. Gonito and Christian Aldrin S. Cristobal
Facts:
Respondents in this labor case was alleged to be set up by their employer.
The former were called to a meeting, after which they were asked to remain. They
were then handed out a notice to explain and were told that they were being put on
preventive suspension. The respondents were alleged to be involved with
questionable transactions on their expense reports. This pushed the respondents to
file a complaint for illegal suspension. After the filing, respondents Robles and
Gonito were terminated from their work. Respondent Cristobal was not terminated
but was instead transferred to the companys Baguio City office. Cristobal asked not
to be transferred but the managements reply to the request was another notice to
explain for the same charges as the first one.
Issue:
Was respondent Cristobal constructively dismissed?
Law applicable:
Labor Code on illegal dismissals and jurisprudences on the same.
Case history:
Labor Arbiter dismissed the petition
NLRC affirmed the decision of the Labor Arbiter
CA overturned the decision

Ruling:
Yes, respondent was constructively dismissed. The Supreme Court Ruled that
in constructive dismissal cases, the employer has the burden of proving that the
transfer of an employee is for just and valid grounds, such as a genuine business
necessity to transfer such employee. The employer must demonstrate that the
transfer is not unreasonable, inconvenient or prejudicial to the employee and that
the transfer does not involve a demotion in rank or a diminution of salary and other
benefits. A transfer of an employee must also be done in good faith. Petitioner sadly
was not able to discharge this burden.
Opinion:
I agree with the opinion of the Supreme Court. It is well in line with the
Constitutional protection to labor. Additionally it would be really hard on employees
if they were to be transferred on a whim of the management, especially with our
country being an archipelago. It would be too hard on the employees and their
respective families should it be otherwise.
Briones, Christian Salvador T.
20140172378
Mario Dimagan
Versus
Dacworks United, Incorporated and/or Dean A. Cancino
Facts:
Dimagan, a stockholder of respondent company started working as an OIC
therein. After sometime, he was relegated from the position of OIC to supervisor and
subsequently to an ordinary technician. When he openly voiced out his concern, he
was told not to report for work anymore. Dimagan then filed the complaint for illegal
dismissal.
On the other hand, denying such allegation, the company asserted that
Dimagan went on AWOL, violating company policy.
The Labor Arbiter and NLRC found there was illegal dismissal. CA however
found there was neither an illegal nor constructive dismissal.
Issue:
Was there a constructive dismissal of petitioner?
Law applicable:
Labor Code on illegal dismissals and jurisprudences on the same.
Case history:
Labor Arbiter rendered a decision in favor of petitioner
NLRC affirmed the decision of the Labor Arbiter
CA reversed the decision of the NLRC

Ruling:
Yes. The reduction in petitioner's responsibilities and duties, particularly from
supervisor to ordinary technician, constituted a demotion in rank tantamount to
constructive dismissal.
Constructive dismissal is defined as a quitting because continued employment is
rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely 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. Constructive dismissal is therefore a dismissal in disguise
Opinion:
I agree with the decision but with a modification. No person should be forced
to do what he does not want to. I am not just talking about involuntary servitude but
also freedom in general. An easing out is no worse than that of rejection. But
rejection might be better in this instance than that of being eased out of ones
company. It is too indirect. For that, a modification of additional damage should be
proper.