Scribd
Upload
148 views

Uniwide Sales Warehouse Club V. NLRC

Uniwide terminated Kawada's employment as a manager due to various reported incidents of unsatisfactory performance. Kawada claimed she was subjected to harassment and filed a case for illegal dismissal. [1] The NLRC ruled in favor of Kawada but the CA affirmed Uniwide's position. [2] As a managerial employee, mere existence of a basis for believing the employee breached trust is sufficient for dismissal, unlike rank-and-file employees who require proof of involvement. [3] Kawada's evasive attitude supported the impression that she could be guilty of the charges and her claim of constructive dismissal failed the test of whether a reasonable person would have

Uploaded by

benbongon31
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
148 views

Uniwide Sales Warehouse Club V. NLRC

Uniwide terminated Kawada's employment as a manager due to various reported incidents of unsatisfactory performance. Kawada claimed she was subjected to harassment and filed a case for illegal dismissal. [1] The NLRC ruled in favor of Kawada but the CA affirmed Uniwide's position. [2] As a managerial employee, mere existence of a basis for believing the employee breached trust is sufficient for dismissal, unlike rank-and-file employees who require proof of involvement. [3] Kawada's evasive attitude supported the impression that she could be guilty of the charges and her claim of constructive dismissal failed the test of whether a reasonable person would have

Uploaded by

benbongon31
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Rogeline R.

Magno
Block A

UNIWIDE SALES WAREHOUSE CLUB V. NLRC


G.R. No. 154503
February 29, 2008

Facts:

Private respondent was a Full Assistant Store Manager at Uniwide. Later, Uniwide, through Store Manager
Apduhan, issued a Memorandum addressed to Kawada summarizing the various reported incidents
signifying unsatisfactory performance on the latter’s part which include the commingling of good and
damaged items, sale of a voluminous quantity of damaged toys and ready-to-wear items at unreasonable
prices, and failure to submit inventory reports. On an earlier setting on the investigation of her case,
Kawada filed a sick leave, thus causing the hearing/investigation to be rescheduled. Again, upon
rescheduling, Kawada, despite notice and warning that failure to appear would mean abandonment of
her work, did not appear, this time coming up with the excuse that she had been already “constructively
dismissed”. Uniwide terminated her work.
Private respondent claims that from the months of February to June 1998, she had been subjected to
constant harassment, ridicule and inhumane treatment by Apduhan, with the hope that the latter can get
the private respondent to resign. The harassment allegedly came in the form of successive memoranda
which private respondent would receive almost every week, enumerating a litany of offenses and
maligning her reputation and spreading rumors among the employees that private respondent shall be
dismissed soon. The last straw of the imputed harassment was the July 31, 1998 incident wherein private
respondent’s life was put in danger when she lost consciousness due to hypertension as a result of
Apduhan’s alleged hostility and shouting. She filed a case for illegal dismissal.
LA dismissed the case but NLRC ruled in favor of Kawada. Upon appeal by Uniwide, CA affirmed NLRC’s
decision.

Issue:

Whether as a managerial employee, one may be dismissed by reason of mere existence of a basis for
believing that such employee has breached the trust of his employer.

Held:

Yes. With respect to rank-and-file personnel, loss of trust and confidence as ground for valid dismissal
requires proof of involvement in the alleged events in question, and that mere uncorroborated assertions
and accusations by the employer will not be sufficient. But, as regards a managerial employee, mere
existence of a basis for believing that such employee has breached the trust of his employer would suffice
for his dismissal. Hence, in the case of managerial employees, proof beyond reasonable doubt is not
required, it being sufficient that there is some basis for such loss of confidence, such as when the employer
has reasonable ground to believe that the employee concerned is responsible for the purported
misconduct, and the nature of his participation therein renders him unworthy of trust and confidence
demanded by his position.
The evasive attitude of Kawada more than enough supports the impression that she could be guilty or is
guilty of the charges against her and believes that she might not be able to defend herself. This is even
bolstered by the information that complainant called on several of the witnesses against her, simply to
influence them and their testimonies. She could not have been “constructively dismissed.”
Case law defines constructive dismissal as a cessation of work because continued employment is rendered
impossible, unreasonable or unlikely; when there is a demotion in rank or diminution in pay or both; or
when a clear discrimination, insensibility, or disdain by an employer becomes unbearable to the
employee.
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’s an act amounting to dismissal but made
to appear as if it were not. In fact, the employee who is constructively dismissed may be allowed to keep
on coming to work. Constructive dismissal is therefore a dismissal in disguise. The law recognizes and
resolves this situation in favor of employees in order to protect their rights and interests from the coercive
acts of the employer.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy