G.R. No. 167330 - Philippine Health Care Providers, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Private respondent, Agapito T. Tolentino, was employed as a machinist by petitioner Jarcia Machine Shop and Auto Supply, Inc. for sixteen (16) years starting from 1976.
On January 11, 1993, an incident occurred when Tolentino’s wife accompanied his aunt-in-law on an urgent matter, leaving him to care for their two young children, which resulted in his failure to report for work on that day.

On January 12, 1993, when Tolentino reported for work, he was informed by petitioner’s president and general manager, Crispulo Jarcia, that he could not be admitted due to a one-month suspension imposed for the previous day’s absence.
Despite his attempt to explain his situation and seek assistance from a common relative, Mr. Federico Guinto, Tolentino encountered repeated insults and demeaning treatment by Mr. Jarcia.

On January 14, 1993, following repeated incongruities in instructions—first being told to report for work as usual, then being met with similar disrespect—the petitioner assigned Tolentino to a different position.
Tolentino, who had been a machinist for 16 years, was transferred to perform the menial task of transporting construction materials, which he contended was both a demotion and a demeaning reassignment.
Upon refusing the reassignment on the basis that it was not related to his technical expertise, he was subjected to further verbal humiliation and was ultimately told that his employment was terminated.

Tolentino filed an illegal dismissal complaint seeking backwages, separation pay (in lieu of reinstatement), damages, and attorney’s fees.
With the failure of petitioner and its counsel to appear at the mandatory conference on March 4, 1993, the labor arbiter terminated the conference and directed the parties to submit position papers and documentary evidence within fifteen (15) days.
Despite receiving the labor arbiter’s order, petitioner failed to comply, leading to the labor arbiter issuing a decision on May 10, 1993, wherein Tolentino’s claims were granted and his transfer and demotion were declared an illegal constructive dismissal.

Petitioner introduced photocopies of Daily Time Records (DTRs) alleging that Tolentino had a propensity for unauthorized absences, tardiness, and undertime work during 1992.
The DTRs were neither originals nor certified true copies, were unsigned by either Tolentino or petitioner’s representatives, and were contested on their authenticity by the private respondent.
Petitioner subsequently filed an “Urgent Motion for Reconsideration with Motion to Admit Position Paper,” claiming procedural default regarding the mailing of its position paper, but these were filed too late, becoming a point of dispute in the evidentiary record.

On November 23, 1993, the NLRC affirmed the labor arbiter’s ruling, modifying the award by deleting moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees as lacking a factual and legal basis.
Petitioner’s subsequent Motion for Reconsideration/Motion to Remand filed on December 27, 1993, was denied by the NLRC on September 30, 1994.
Petitioner then filed the present special civil action for certiorari, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC and questioning the evidentiary basis for declaring the transfer as a constructive dismissal.

Whether the NLRC and the labor arbiter committed grave abuse of discretion in upholding the decision that declared Tolentino’s transfer and demotion as an illegal constructive dismissal.

Did the NLRC err in disregarding the petitioner’s evidence from the unauthenticated DTRs that purportedly showed Tolentino’s habitual absences, tardiness, and undertime work?
Was the petitioner’s right to manage and protect its business derogated by the ruling upholding the employee’s claim of constructive dismissal?
Whether private respondent, having been transferred and demoted without due notice and an opportunity to contest, was entitled to backwages and other monetary relief due to an unlawful constructive dismissal.