Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CONSTANCIA DULDULAO v. CA

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 185814 2010-10-13	SHS PERFORATED MATERIALS v. MANUEL F. DIAZ MENDOZA, J.
There is constructive dismissal if an act of clear discrimination, insensibility, or disdain by an employer becomes so unbearable on the part of the employee that it would foreclose any choice by him except to forego his continued employment. It exists where there is cessation of work because continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely, as an offer involving a demotion in rank and a diminution in pay. [25]
	GR No. 174141 2009-06-26	PENTAGON STEEL CORPORATION v. CA BRION, J.
Second, there was no clear intention on the respondent's part to sever the employer-employee relationship. Considering that "intention" is a mental state, the petitioner must show that the respondent's overt acts point unerringly to his intent not to work anymore.[23] In this case, we see no reason to depart from the unanimous factual findings of the NLRC and the CA that the respondent's actions after his absence from work for ten (10) days due to illness showed his willingness to return to work. Both tribunals found that after the respondent presented his medical certificate to the petitioner to explain his absence, he even went back to his doctor for a certification that he was already fit to return to work. These findings of fact we duly accept as findings that we must not only respect, but consider as final, since they are supported by substantial evidence.[24]
	GR No. 151309 2008-10-15	BISIG MANGGAGAWA SA TRYCO v. NLRC NACHURA, J.
The Court has previously declared that mere incidental inconvenience is not sufficient to warrant a claim of constructive dismissal.[23] Objection to a transfer that is grounded solely upon the personal inconvenience or hardship that will be caused to the employee by reason of the transfer is not a valid reason to disobey an order of transfer.[24]
	GR No. 162332 2008-08-28	HERBERT SOLAS v. POWER TELEPHONE SUPPLY PHILS. AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In Duldulao v. Court of Appeals,[12] the Court held that:There is constructive dismissal if an act of clear discrimination, insensibility, or disdain by an employer becomes so unbearable on the part of the employee that it would foreclose any choice by him except to forego his continued employment. It exists where there is cessation of work because "continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely, as an offer involving a demotion in rank and a diminution in pay."[13] In this case, petitioner's allegations that respondents committed acts of harassment, i.e., the withholding of his salary for the month of February and directing him to return the company car, cellphone and office keys, have been rebutted and sufficiently explained by private respondent company in its Position Paper.[14] Respondents were able to show that its acts were not intended to harass or discriminate against petitioner.
	GR No. 160940 2008-07-21	MEGAFORCE SECURITY AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
There is constructive dismissal if an act of clear discrimination, insensibility, or disdain by an employer becomes so unbearable on the part of the employee that it would foreclose any choice by him except to forego his continued employment.[20] It exists where there is cessation of work because continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely, as an offer involving a demotion in rank and a diminution in pay.[21]