FE LA ROSA VS AMBASSADOR HOTEL

FE LA ROSA

VS

AMBASSADOR HOTEL
581 SCRA 340 (2009)

Case law holds that constructive dismissal occurs when there is cessation of work because continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely; when there is a demotion in rank or diminution in pay or both; or when a clear discrimination, insensibility, or disdain by an employer becomes unbearable to the employee.

Petitioners Fe La Rosa, Ofelia Velez, Cely Domingo, Jona Natividad and Edgar De Leon (La Rosa, et al.), were employees of respondent Ambassador Hotel. La Rosa, et al. filed before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) several complaints for illegal dismissal, illegal suspension, and illegal deductions against the hotel and its manager. La Rosa, et al. alleged that after filing their complaints with the Department of Labor, the latter inspected the hotel’s premises. The hotel was thereafter found to have been violating labor standards laws. Consequently, after such incident, the management of the hotel retaliated by suspending and/or constructively dismissing them by drastically reducing their work days through the adoption of a work reduction/rotation scheme. The hotel however countered that such reduction/rotation scheme was an exercise of its management prerogative due to business losses.

The labor arbiter found the hotel and its manager guilty of illegal dismissal. The hotel appealed to the NLRC but the latter affirmed the labor arbiter’s ruling with modification. The hotel appealed and prayed for the issuance of an injunctive writ before the Court of Appeals. The appellate court reversed the NLRC decision and dismissed the petitioners’ complaints, stating that there was no constructive dismissal.

ISSUES:
Whether or not La Rosa et al. were constructively dismissed

HELD:
The records fail, however, to show any documentary proof that the work reduction scheme was adopted due to Ambassador’s business reverses. The hotel’s memorandum dated April 5, 2000 (sic, should be 2002) informing La Rosa et al. of the adoption of a two-day work scheme effective April 5, 2002 made no mention why such scheme was being adopted. Neither do the records show any documentary proof that the hotel suffered financial losses to justify its adoption of the said scheme to stabilize its operations.

What is undisputed, as found by both the labor arbiter and the NLRC and admitted by respondent itself, is that the complaints for violation of labor standards laws were filed by La Rosa et al. against Ambassador Hotel at the DOLE-NCR, some of which complaints were partially settled; and that almost immediately after the partial settlement of the said complaints, the work reduction/rotation scheme was implemented.

Case law holds that constructive dismissal occurs when there is cessation of work because continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely; when there is a demotion in rank or diminution in pay or both; or when a clear discrimination, insensibility, or disdain by an employer becomes unbearable to the employee. The hotel’s sudden, arbitrary and unfounded adoption of the two-day work scheme which greatly reduced La Rosa, et al.’s salaries renders it liable for constructive dismissal.

Upon the other hand, La Rosa et al.’s immediate filing of complaints for illegal suspension and illegal dismissal after the implementation of the questioned work scheme, which scheme was adopted soon after petitioners’ complaints against respondent for violation of labor standards laws were found meritorious, negates respondent’s claim of abandonment. An employee who takes steps to protest his dismissal cannot by logic be said to have abandoned his work