VIRGINIA A. SUGUE and THE HEIRS OF RENATO S. VALDERRAMA, vs. TRIUMPH INTERNATIONAL (PHILS.), INC., G.R. No. 16!" # G.R. No. 16$! %ANUAR& '", "" Princi Principle ple:: Indeed Indeed,, the law impose imposes s many many obliga obligatio tions ns on the employ employer er such such as provid providing ing just just compensation to workers, and observance of the procedural requirements of notice and hearing in the termination of employment. On the other hand, the law also recognies the right of the employer to e!pect from its workers not only good performance, adequate work and diligence, but also good conduct and loyalty. loyalty. "he employer may not be compelled to continue to employ such persons whose continuance in the service will patently be inimical to his interests.
Fa*+s Triumph Triumph hired Sugue as its Assistant Manager for Marketing and was subsequently promoted to Marketing Services Manager on the other hand, Valderrama was hired as Direct Sales Manager Manager Their main function!r function!respon esponsibili sibility ty was to ensure ensure that the company"s company"s sales targets and ob#ectives were met Triumph"s Triumph"s top management began to notice a sharp decline in the sales of the company company Moreover, in the following months, the actual sales $gures continued to be signi$cantly below below the sales sales target targets s set by Valderr alderrama ama himsel himselff This This persist persistent ent below below target target sales sales performance was the sub#ect of correspondence between Valderrama and his superiors from %ovember &''' to (uly )*** +n (une &, )***, Sugue and Valderrama $led a complaint with the %-. against Triumph Triumph for payment of money claims arising from allegedly unpaid vacation and sick leave credits, birthday leave and &/th month pay for the period &'''0)*** Sugue and Valderrama Valderrama personally attended the preliminary conference of the said case The following day, a memorandum was issued by Triumphs Managing Director!1eneral Manager 2scu 2s cuet eta, a, remind emindin ing g all all depa departm rtmen entt head heads s of e3is e3isti ting ng comp compan any y poli policy cy that that requir equires es department heads to notify him before leaving the o4ce during work hours That same day, Triumphs Triumphs 5ersonnel Manager, issued separate memoranda to Sugue and Valderrama requiring them to inform the o4ce of the 1eneral Manager of their whereabouts on (une &', )*** from '6*7 am to &&6&8 am They replied that they attended the aforementioned preliminary conference Valderrama and Sugue were directed to submit a written e3planation as to why they used company time and the company vehicle and driver in attending the preliminary conference at the %-. and why they left the o4ce without advising the Managing Director They e3plained that they believed they may use company time and vehicle Triumph charged the one0half day utili9ed by Sugue and Valderrama in attending the %-. hearing to their vacation leave credits :n the pleadings6 Valderrama .ompla .omplained ined that that his reques requestt for an e3ecu e3ecutiv tive e check0 check0up up was dis disapp appro roved ved There Thereaft after, er, Valderrama did not report for work due allegedly to persistent cough and vertigo, but his reques requestt for sick sick leave leave on those those dates dates was disappro disapproved ved because because he failed failed to submit submit a medical certi$cate as required by the company"s rules and policie s Triumph Triumph issued a show cause memo to Valderrama Valderrama requiring him to e3plain, within /; hours from receipt Valderrama wrote the company a letter stating that he considered himself constructi constructively vely dismissed due to the unreasona unreasonable ble pressures pressures and harassments harassments he su
Also wrote wrote the company company stating that she considers considers herself herself constructively constructively dismisse dismissed d =er charge of constructive dismissal was based on the fact that her request for vacation leave was was su sub# b#ec ectt to the the cond condit itio ion n that that sh she e $rst $rst su subm bmit its s a repor reportt on the the comp compan any" y"s s )* )**& *& Marketing 5lan Also, the approval approval of her request for e3ecutive e3ecutive check0up was deferred She received a memorandum instructing her to report to Mr Temblique, Temblique, who was appointed +:. for Marketing as a result of a reorgani9ation prompted by Valderrama"s continued absences Sugue claimed that such act by Triumph was an outright demotion considering that Mr Temblique Temblique was her former assistant Triumph Triumph required Sugue to e3plain why she should not be terminated terminated for continued continued absences without o4cial leave Sugue failed to comply, comply, thus, thus, her employment was terminated for abandonment of work The following day Valderrama commenced his employment as Sales Director of >ila 5hils, :nc, a competitior of Triumph Triumph abo aborr Arbi Arbite terr6 rende enderred constructively dismissed
a
deci decisi sion on,,
decl declar arin ing g
that that Sugu Sugue e
and and
Valde alderr rram ama a
wer were
Aggrieved, Triumph $led an appeal with the %-. %-.6 %-.6 granted Triumph"s Triumph"s the appeal and reversed the ruling of abor Arbiter %ot satis$ed with the %-. decision, Sugue and Valderrama elevated the matter to the .A by way of a petition for certiorari ?hile the matter was pending with the .A, Valderrama passed away and notice of his death was $led by his counsel .A6 partly granted, set aside %-. and the decision of labor arbiter is reinstated, sub#ect to the the delet deletio ion n of the the awar award d of atto attorn rney eys s fees fees and and the the redu reduct ctio ion n of the the awar award d of mora morall damages for each of the petitioners M-6 from both parties Denied
Iss- ?+% the .ourt of Appeals gravely erred and contravened the law and #urisprudence in ruling ruling that that Valderam alderama a and Sugue Sugue were were constr construct uctive ively ly dis dismis missed sed,, and are are entitl entitled ed to separation pay, backwages and damages R-/0n ?e $nd su4cient reasons to uphold Triumphs position .onstructive dismissal is de$ned as an involuntary resignation resorted to when continued employment becomes impossible, unreasonable or unlikely@ when there is a demotion in rank or a diminution in pay@ or when a clear discrimination, insensibility or disdain by an employer becomes unbearable to an employee Sugue and Valderrama"s theory that Triumphs acts of harassment, upon which they base thei theirr char charge ge of cons constr truc ucti tive ve dism dismis issa sal, l, wer were in retal etalia iati tion on for for thei theirr $lin $ling g of the the afor aforem emen enti tion oned ed comp compla lain intt for for unpa unpaid id bene bene$t $ts s The The acts acts that that purp purpor orte tedl dly y sh show ow discri dis crimin minati ation on and bad faith on the part part of Triumph riumph ?ith ?ith respe respect ct to the $rst $rst alleged alleged discriminatory act, we can conceive of no reason to ascribe bad faith or malice to Triumph for charging to the leave credits of Sugue and Valderrama the half0day that they spent in attending the preliminary conference of the case they instituted against Triumph :t is fair and reason reasonabl able e for Triumph riumph to do so consid considerin ering g that that Sugue Sugue and Valderr alderrama ama did not perform work for one0half day on (une &', )*** :ndeed, we $nd it surprising that Sugue and Valderrama would even have the temerity to contend that the hours they spent in attending the hearing were compensable time As the %-. correctly pointed out, as early as the case of ( =eilbronn .o v %ational abor Bnion, this .ourt held that6
C?hen the case of strikes, and according to the .:- even if the strike is legal, strikers may not collect their wages during the days they did not go to work, for the same reasons if not more, laborers who voluntarily absent themselves from work to attend the hearing of a case in which they seek to prove and establish their demands against the company, the legality and propriety of which demands is not yet known, should lose their pay during the period of such absence from work The age0old rule governing the relation between labor and capital or management and employee is that a fair dayEs wage for a fair dayEs labor :f there is no work performed by the employee there can be no wage or pay, unless of course, the labor laborer er was able, willing willing and ready ready to work work but was illega illegally lly locked locked out, out, dis dismis missed sed or suspended :t is hardly fair or #ust for an employee or laborer to $ght or litigate against his employer on the employerEs timeF ?e cannot uphold the .As approval of the abor Arbiters $nding that the memoranda issu issued ed by Trium riumph ph in conn connec ecti tion on with with the the (une (une &' &',, )* )*** ** hear hearin ing g cons consti titu tute te undu undue e harassment To To begin with, the complained of Memorandum issued by Mr Mr 2scueta, regarding the company policy that required department heads to give prior notice to the 1eneral Manager if they will be away from the o4ce during o4ce hours, did not single out Sugue and Valde alderrrama rama but but was was addr addres esse sed d to all all depa depart rtme ment nt head heads s .ont .ontra rary ry to Sugu Sugue e and and Valderrama"s assertion that said policy was being retroactively applied to them, it is plain on the face of the same memorandum that the policy of requiring department heads to give notice to the +4ce of the Managing Director!1eneral Manager should they leave the o4ce during regular work hours had been in force since &''G Anent Sugue and Valderrama"s claim that they were un#ustly denied availment of their leaves as part of a scheme on the part of Triumph to harass them, we $nd the same patently without merit :n the case of Valderrama, he applied for sick leave but this was disapproved by Triumph The record, however, reveals that he failed to comply with the company"s requirement for the application for sick leave for two or more days must be supported by a medical certi$cate, which must be veri$ed by the company physician Sugue condemns Triumph for putting a condition on the approval of her two days vacation leave, when she was required to $rst submit a report on the )**& Marketing 5lan Again, we $nd nothing discriminatory in such a condition considering that she was unable to show that she was the only employee whose leave application has been sub#ected to a condition Discrimination is the failure to treat all persons equally when no reasonable distinction can be found between those favored favored and those not favored favored As for the nature of of the condition itself, we do not see how it can be deemed unreasonable or in bad faith for the employer to require its employee to complete her assignments on time or before taking a vacation leave oth Sugue and Valderrama Valderrama question question the denial by Triumph of their request for e3ecutiv e3ecutive e check0up :t should be noted that Triumph did not completely turn down their request ased on their own evidence, their request was merely deferred because the )**& :nitial Marketing 5lan was due and Triumphs regional product manager was scheduled to visit the country country :t is worth stressing stressing that in the grant of vacation vacation and sick leave privileges privileges to an employee, the employer is given leeway to impose conditions on the entitlement, as the grant of vacation and sick leave is not a standard of law, but a prerogative of management :t is a mere concession or act of grace of the employer and not a matter of right on the part of the employee Thus, it is well within the power and authority of an employer to deny an employee"s application for leave and the same cannot be perceived as discriminatory or harassment Sugue ne3t asserts that she was demoted when she was directed to report to Mr Temblique Temblique who was her subordinate and when she was stripped of her usual functions Demotion involves a situation where an employee is relegated to a subordinate or less important position constituting a reduction to a lower grade or rank, with a corresponding decrease in
salaries, bene$ts and privileges The evidence on hand belies Sugues assertion, the truth being that prior to the reorgani9ation reorgani9ation,, Mr Mr Temblique emblique occupied occupied the position position of Assis Assistant tant Manager for Direct Sales and as such was Valderramas subordinate and not of Sugue Sugue likewise failed to adequately prove her assertion that she reported directly to the 1eneral Manager, Mr 2scueta, when she was Marketing Services Manager or that she was not subordinate to Valderrama ?orth noting at this point is that as early as (une )&, )***, Valderrama had accepted employment with >ila 5hilippines, :nc as its Sales Director Although his appointment was to take eila while he was still employed with Triumph as shown by >ilas inter0o4ce inter0o4ce memo me mo announcing to iits ts employees Valderramas appointment >urther, they $led a complaint for constructive dismissal without praying for reinstatement y analogy, we point to the doctrine that abandonment of work is inconsistent with the $ling of a complaint for illegal dismissal is not applicable where the complainant does not pray for reinstatement and #ust asks for separation pay instead :n this case, Sugue and Valderrama alderrama opted not to ask for reinstateme reinstatement nt and even for separation separation pay, which clearly contradicts their stance that they did not abandon their work, for it appears they have no intention of ever returning to their positions in Triumph %-. reinstated