Saturday, September 15, 2007 Constructive dismissal By Dominador A. Almirante Labor case digest
RESPONDENT Antonio Decorion was preventively suspended for a total of 103 days by petitioner Maricalum Mining Corporation for failure to attend a meeting called by its supervisor. Decorion filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and money claims. Maricalum contended that Decorion was never dismissed from the service. Did this contention and merit?
Ruling: No.
Maricalum Mining’s contention that there was as yet no illegal dismissal at the time of the filing of the complaint is evidently unmeritorious. Decorion’s preventive suspension had already ripened into constructive dismissal at that time.
While actual dismissal and constructive dismissal do take place in different fashion, the legal consequences they generate are identical.
Decorion’s employment may not have been actually terminated in the sense that he was not served walking papers but there is no doubt that he was constructively dismissed as he was forced to quit because continued employment was rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely (Garcia v. NLRC, 372 Phil. 482 (1999)), by Maricalum Mining’s act of preventing him from reporting for work. (Maricalum Mining Corporation vs. Antonio Decorion, G.R. No. 158637, April 12, 2006).
