Title
Supreme Court
Tuason vs. Bank of Commerce
Case
G.R. No. 192076
Decision Date
Nov 21, 2012
Employee pressured to resign, replaced without notice; Supreme Court ruled constructive dismissal, ordered separation pay and backwages.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 187456)

Factual Background

Michelle T. Tuason was employed as the head of the Marketing Department of the Property Management Group (PMG) at the Bank of Commerce (BOC) starting from January 1, 2002. She was designated as officer-in-charge of PMG on May 2, 2002, and officially became the head of PMG on January 2, 2003. Tuason's role required her to develop strategies for the efficient sale of real and acquired properties. Her issues began on February 28, 2005, when she faced administrative charges regarding property sales, resulting in a 30-day suspension after a finding of violations against BOC's Code of Discipline.

Development of Events Leading to Dispute

Effective management of her duties became increasingly burdensome for Tuason, culminating in a letter dated July 5, 2007, where she expressed her distress from ongoing pressure to resign, as communicated by her superior, Mario Padilla. Despite her expressed intention to stay with the company and seek a leave to alleviate stress from the work environment, her request for leave from July 6, 2007, was declined by BOC's Human Resources Management and Development Group. Subsequent correspondence dictated Tuason report back to work while simultaneously announcing her replacement, Maximo V. Estrada, effective July 16, 2007.

Tuason's Reaction and Legal Proceedings

By July 18, 2007, Tuason communicated her confusion regarding her employment status, prompting an inquiry into her position. Her leave application was later approved, but on August 23, 2007, she received notification suggesting that her failure to report for work would be interpreted as a loss of interest in her employment. As a result, Tuason filed for constructive dismissal, asserting that she had been effectively ousted from her position without a formal dismissal or reassignment.

Labor Arbiter and NLRC's Decisions

The Labor Arbiter's initial ruling dismissed Tuason's case for lack of merit. However, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed this decision, asserting that she had indeed been constructively dismissed and holding BOC accountable for her separation pay and back wages. The NLRC maintained that Tuason's complaints were valid, particularly demonstrating that the pressure exerted on her to resign, combined with her replacement while on leave, constituted constructive dismissal.

Court of Appeals' Ruling

The BOC's motion for reconsideration was denied, leading them to elevate the case to the Court of Appeals (CA), which subsequently ruled in favor of BOC, claiming that Tuason's reassignment was a legitimate management prerogative, thus overturning the NLRC's decision and reinstating the Labor Arbiter's ruling.

Supreme Court Analysis and Conclusion

The Supreme Court examined the situation critically, disagreeing with the CA's findings regarding the absence of evidence sup

...continue reading

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