Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SOLIMAN SECURITY SERVICES v. CA

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 206942 2015-02-25	VICENTE C. TATEL v. JLFP INVESTIGATION SECURITY AGENCY PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Relative thereto, constructive dismissal exists when an act of clear discrimination, insensibility, or disdain, on the part of the employer has become so unbearable as to leave an employee with no choice but to forego continued employment,[64] or when 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.[65]
	GR No. 177816 2011-08-03	NIPPON HOUSING PHIL. INC. v. MAIAH ANGELA LEYNES PEREZ, J.
Viewed in the light of the foregoing factual antecedents, we find that the CA reversibly erred in holding petitioners liable for constructively dismissing Leynes from her employment. There is said to be constructive dismissal when an act of clear discrimination, insensitivity or disdain on the part of the employer has become so unbearable as to leave an employee with no choice but to forego continued employment.[41] Constructive dismissal 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.[42] Stated otherwise, it is a dismissal in disguise or an act amounting to dismissal but made to appear as if it were not.[43] In constructive dismissal cases, the employer is, concededly, charged with the burden of proving that its conduct and action or the transfer of an employee are for valid and legitimate grounds such as genuine business necessity.[44]To our mind, respondents have more than amply discharged this burden with proof of the circumstances surrounding Engr. Carlos' employment as Property Manager for the Project and the consequent unavailability of a similar position for Leynes.
	GR No. 186614 2011-02-23	NATIONWIDE SECURITY v. RONALD P. VALDERAMA NACHURA, J.
Indubitably, respondent remained on "floating status" for more than six months. He was relieved on January 30, 2006, and was not given a new assignment at the time he filed the complaint on August 2, 2006. Jurisprudence is trite with pronouncements that the temporary inactivity or "floating status" of security guards should continue only for six months. Otherwise, the security agency concerned could be liable for constructive dismissal.[24] The failure of petitioner to give respondent a work assignment beyond the reasonable six-month period makes it liable for constructive dismissal. The CA was correct in sustaining respondent's claim.
	GR No. 159730 2008-02-11	NORKIS TRADING CO. v. MELVIN GNILO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
There is also constructive dismissal when an act of clear discrimination, insensibility, or disdain by an employer becomes so unbearable on the part of the employee as to foreclose any choice on his part except to resign from such employment.[27] As aptly observed by the CA, to wit:While we may allow petitioners the leeway of disciplining its employees, which is why we uphold the finding of the NLRC that the fifteen-day suspension of private respondent was legal and proper, We cannot countenance the barbaric treatment suffered by the latter in the hands of his bosses. Undisputed it is that not only was private respondent made to look like an idiot when he was not given work in his new assignment, but that he was humiliated and debased when petitioner Albos, in a very uncouth manner, hurled expletives at the private respondent, calling him bobo, gago and screaming putang ina mo in front of him, at the same time "crumpling (his) report" and throwing it into his face. Such undignified and boorish deeds perpetrated against private respondent directly caused him to forthwith leave the employ of petitioner corporation, which he served loyally for some twelve (12) years. [28]
	GR NO. 159293 2005-12-16	VETERANS SECURITY AGENCY v. FELIPE GONZALVO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Constructive dismissal exist when an act of clear discrimination, insensibility or disdain on the part of the employer has become so unbearable as to leave an employee with no choice but to forego continued employment.[9] On the other hand, abandonment, as a just and valid cause for termination, requires a deliberate and unjustified refusal of an employee to resume his work, coupled with a clear absence of any intention of returning to his or her work. Abandonment is incompatible with constructive dismissal.[10]
	GR No. 154689 2004-11-25	UNICORN SAFETY GLASS v. RODRIGO BASARTE YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
Constructive dismissal or a constructive discharge has been defined as quitting because continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely, as an offer involving a demotion in rank and a diminution in pay.[15] Constructive dismissal, however, does not always take the form of a diminution. In several cases, we have ruled that an act of clear discrimination, insensibility, or disdain by an employer may become so unbearable on the part of the employee so as to foreclose any choice on his part except to resign from such employment. This constitutes constructive dismissal.[16]