G.R. No. 45375 - Commonwealth of the Philippines vs. Baldello

On August 9, 2002, Gemina entered into an employment contract with Bankwise, Inc. as Marketing Officer with the rank of Senior Manager.
The contract provided an annual salary of ₱750,000 based on a fifteen‐month scheme (₱50,000 per month) and the use of a service vehicle for field work.
A key stipulation in the contract was the fund level commitment of ₱100,000,000 for the first six months, which also served as the standard for evaluating Gemina’s performance.

During his first three months, Gemina’s performance was reported as satisfactory, with successful acquisition of new and former clients.
A controversy involving deposits linked to the Foreign Retirees Association subsequently affected the bank’s capacity to attract new depositors.
Gemina proposed innovative marketing strategies to his immediate superiors, Perfecto Pascua and Osmenio Galapate, which were implemented without his involvement and later led to a failure for which he was blamed.

An eleven-day leave from January 17 to January 31, 2003, after which his salary for that period was withheld until he confronted his supervisors.
The salary for the February 1-15, 2003 payroll period was partly released, amounting only to ₱12,411.67 instead of the ₱25,000 due.
A memorandum dated February 17, 2003, ordered him to turn over the service vehicle to Mr. Joselito Hogar, which he refused.

Bankwise maintained that the fund level commitment was integral to Gemina’s employment:

As of December 27, 2002, Gemina had contributed only ₱2,915,282.97, far below the required ₱100,000,000.
His supervisors sternly warned him in January 2003 about his poor performance regarding the fund level commitment.

Took leave for eleven days and thereafter incurred absences without leave from February 1 to 15, 2003.
Failed to promptly submit attendance records, which delayed salary processing, and ultimately did not return the service vehicle when ordered.

On February 19, 2003, Gemina filed a complaint for constructive (and later alleged illegal) dismissal against Bankwise.
Labor Arbiter (LA) Decision (April 30, 2004):

Found Gemina to have been illegally dismissed based on acts of harassment—deprivation of duties, delayed salaries, and the vehicle return demand.
Ordered his reinstatement with back wages and benefits.

Reversed the LA ruling on the ground that Gemina abandoned his employment rather than being constructively dismissed.
Emphasized that the fund level commitment was a contractual duty tied to his performance evaluation.

Denied Gemina’s petition for certiorari.
Held that his poor performance in meeting the contractual fund level commitment and his own actions (AWOL and delayed documentation) negated his claim of constructive dismissal.

Gemina filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court on January 2, 2007.
He reiterated his claims of harassment, including the deletion of his name from the organizational chart, withheld salaries, and the unfounded vehicle return order.
Bankwise’s situation changed when it was declared insolvent in 2008 and the PDIC was appointed as its receiver.

Whether Gemina was constructively dismissed by Bankwise or whether his actions amounted to an abandonment of employment.

Examination of whether the acts committed against him qualified as harassment sufficient to mandate a claim of constructive dismissal.

Is the commitment a mere evaluative measure for performance monitoring, or does it constitute a contractual obligation forming the basis of his employment?

Whether withholding of salary and the order to return the service vehicle were acts intended to harass and force Gemina to resign.
Whether the CA erred in affirming the NLRC decision dismissing Gemina’s claim by basing its ruling on his failure to meet the contractual performance standard.
Whether the due process requirements in proving constructive dismissal were satisfied by Gemina’s allegations and evidence on record.