Labor Law Digest: MARIO DIMAGAN V. DACWORKS UNITED INC. [G.R. No. 191053, November 28, 2011]

Topics: Constructive Dismissal, Abandonment, AWOL

MARIO DIMAGAN V. DACWORKS UNITED INC.

[G.R. No. 191053,    November 28, 2011]

Facts:

Dimagan, a stockholder of respondent company started working as an OIC therein. After sometime, he was relegated from the position of OIC to supervisor and subsequently to an ordinary technician. When he openly voiced out his concern, he was told not to report for work anymore. Dimagan then filed the complaint for illegal dismissal.

On the other hand, denying such allegation, the company asserted that Dimagan went on AWOL, violating company policy.  

The Labor Arbiter and NLRC found there was illegal dismissal. CA however found there was neither an illegal nor constructive dismissal.

ISSUE:

1)    Was there constructive dismissal of petitioner?

2)    Was there abandonment of employment by failing to report for work or having gone AWOL?

HELD:

1)    Yes. The reduction in petitioner's responsibilities and duties, particularly from supervisor to ordinary technician, constituted a demotion in rank tantamount to constructive dismissal.

Constructive dismissal is defined as a quitting because continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely; when there is a demotion in rank or a diminution of pay. The test of constructive dismissal is whether a reasonable person in the employee's position would have felt compelled to give up his position under the circumstances. It is an act amounting to dismissal but is made to appear as if it were not. Constructive dismissal is therefore a dismissal in disguise.

2)    None. Petitioner’s failure to report for work was caused by the unwarranted demotion in rank that was imposed upon him by respondents, not by any intention to sever employment ties with them. And his filing of the instant complaint for illegal dismissal indubitably negates the allegation of abandonment.

For abandonment to exist, the operative act is still the employees’ ultimate act of putting an end to his employment. Thus, mere absence or failure to report for work is not tantamount to abandonment of work.