Title
Supreme Court
Roxas vs. Baliwag Transit, Inc.
Case
G.R. No. 231859
Decision Date
Feb 19, 2020
Bus driver Gerardo Roxas claimed constructive dismissal after reduced work assignments due to government regulations. SC ruled no constructive dismissal but found his termination illegal, ordering reinstatement or separation pay.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 45699)

Background Facts

Gerardo C. Roxas was employed as a bus driver by Baliwag Transit, Inc. (BTI) since March 24, 1998, on a commission basis. In 2012, the bus assigned to him was phased out in compliance with a government regulation, resulting in a reduction of his work assignment from a regular three-week schedule to only two weeks per month. Feeling aggrieved, Roxas filed a first complaint on June 5, 2014, alleging constructive dismissal and other claims against BTI and its owner, Joselito S. Tengco, before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).

Procedural History

The NLRC dismissed Roxas’s first complaint on October 15, 2014, due to improper venue. Roxas subsequently filed a second complaint on February 16, 2015, for illegal constructive dismissal, which included the same claims as the first. The second complaint was met with retaliatory actions from BTI, leading Roxas to argue that he was constructively dismissed as he received no work assignments after filing the second complaint. BTI claimed Roxas was a disgruntled employee and denied the existence of constructive dismissal.

Labor Arbiter Ruling

In a decision dated October 30, 2015, the Labor Arbiter dismissed Roxas’s complaint with prejudice. The Arbiter concluded that Roxas had not been constructively dismissed, as evidence showed he continued to receive assignments after filing complaints. Additionally, Roxas was deemed dismissed for insubordination and other misconduct as he did not respond to management's directives regarding his complaints.

NLRC Ruling

On January 8, 2016, the NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter's ruling, stating that Roxas had not been subjected to unfair treatment as the reduced work assignment applied to all affected employees and that his dismissal was justified based on insubordination and abandonment. A subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied by the NLRC on February 29, 2016.

Court of Appeals Ruling

The Court of Appeals, in its decision dated November 23, 2016, upheld the NLRC's findings, determining that there was no constructive dismissal and that BTI’s reduction in work assignments was a valid exercise of management prerogative. However, it ruled that Roxas’s termination notice was insufficient and awarded him nominal damages of P30,000.00.

Issues for Resolution

The Supreme Court needed to resolve whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the absence of constructive dismissal and the validity of Roxas's termination.

Supreme Court Ruling

The Court found merit in Roxas's petition, stating that the grounds for concluding there was no constructive dismissal were misapplied. The systematic reduction in his work diminished his pay and benefits significantly, and was not merely an exercise of management prerogative as it affected compensation adversely without just cause. The rationale for reduced assignments, relating to a government directive, did not exemp

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.