Reynaldo Madrigalejos VS Geminilou Trucking Service Liberty Galotera

Reynaldo Madrigalejos

VS

Geminilou Trucking Service Liberty Galotera
G. R. No. 179174, 24 December 2008

The test of constructive dismissal is whether a reasonable person in the employee’s position would have felt compelled to give up his job under the circumstances.

Reynaldo Madrigalejos was hired by Geminilou Trucking Service Liberty Galotera as a truck driver to haul and deliver products of San Miguel Pure Foods Company, Inc. Madrigalejos claimed that he was requested by Geminilou Trucking Service Liberty Galotera et al. to sign a contract entitled “Kasunduan Sa Pag-Upa ng Serbisyo” which he refused as he found it to alter his status as a regular employee to merely contractual, and it contained a waiver of benefits that had accrued since he started working for respondents.

Claiming that he was terminated by not signing the Kasunduan, Madrigalejos filed with the National Labor Relations Commission (NRLC) a complaint for constructive dismissal against Geminilou Trucking Service Liberty Galotera et al.

Geminilou Trucking Service Liberty Galotera et al. denied dismissing Madrigalejos from his employment, explaining that he unilaterally decided to stop reporting for work, following the filing by a fellow driver of a complaint against him for allegedly attacking his fellow driver with a knife.

The Labor Arbiter declared that Madrigalejos had been illegally dismissed. The NLRC reversed the Decision ruling that there was no termination of employment. The appellate court denied petitioner’s appeal finding that even assuming that Madrigalejos was required but refused to sign the Kasunduan, his refusal does not per se adequately support the charge of dismissal. The appellate court added that while technical rules on evidence are not strictly followed in the NLRC, a charge of dismissal must still be supported by substantial evidence at the very least, or such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the employer bears the burden of proof to show that there was unjustified refusal to report for work

HELD:
The Court’s examination of the records reveals that the factual findings of the NLRC, as affirmed by the appellate court, are supported by substantial evidence, hence, there is no cogent reason for the Court to modify or reverse the same.

Constructive dismissal is a 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 test of constructive dismissal is whether a reasonable person in the employee’s position would have felt compelled to give up his job under the circumstances.

In the present case, the records on hand show that the lone piece of evidence submitted by petitioner to substantiate his claim of constructive dismissal is an unsigned copy of the Kasunduan. This falls way short of the required quantum of proof which, as the appellate court pointed out, is substantial evidence, or such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.

Under the circumstances, the Court finds that the appellate court did not err in sustaining Geminilou Trucking Service Liberty Galotera et al’s claim that Madrigalejos was not dismissed, but that he simply failed to report for work after an altercation with a fellow driver, which incident was the subject of conciliation proceedings before the Sangguniang Barangay.