VIRGINIA A. SUGUE and THE HEIRS OF RENATO S. VALDERRAMA, vs.

TRIUMPH

INTERNATIONAL (PHILS.), INC., G.R. No. 164804 & G.R. No. 164784 JANUARY 30, 2009

Facts:

Triumph hired Sugue as its Assistant Manager for Marketing and was subsequently promoted to Marketing Services
Manager on the other hand, Valderrama was hired as Direct Sales Manager.

On June 1, 2000, Sugue and Valderrama filed a complaint with the NLRC against Triumph for payment of money claims
arising from allegedly unpaid vacation and sick leave credits, birthday leave and 14th month pay for the period 1999-2000.

Sugue and Valderrama personally attended the preliminary conference of the said case. The following day, a memorandum
was issued by Triumphs Managing Director/General Manager Escueta, reminding all department heads of existing company
policy that requires department heads to notify him before leaving the office during work hours. That same day, Triumphs
Personnel Manager, issued separate memoranda to Sugue and Valderrama requiring them to inform the office of the
General Manager of their whereabouts on June 19, 2000. They replied that they attended the aforementioned preliminary
conference by using company vehicle. Valderrama and Sugue explained that they believed they may use company time and
vehicle. Triumph charged the one-half day utilized by Sugue and Valderrama in attending the NLRC hearing to their vacation
leave credits.

Valderrama also complained that his request for an executive check-up was disapproved Thereafter, Valderrama did not
report for work due allegedly to persistent cough and vertigo, but his request for sick leave on those dates was disapproved
because he failed to submit a medical certificate as required by the company’s rules and policies.

Valderrama wrote the company a letter stating that he considered himself constructively dismissed due to the unreasonable
pressures and harassments he suffered the past months. His continued absences without official leave made Triumph decide
to terminate his employment for abandonment of work.

Sugue Also wrote the company stating that she considers herself constructively dismissed. Her charge of constructive
dismissal was based on the fact that her request for vacation leave was subject to the condition that she first submits a
report on the company’s 2001 Marketing Plan. Also, the approval of her request for executive check-up was deferred. She
received a memorandum instructing her to report to Mr. Temblique, who was appointed OIC for Marketing as a result of a
reorganization prompted by Valderrama’s continued absences. Sugue claimed that such act by Triumph was an outright
demotion considering that Mr. Temblique was her former assistant. Triumph required Sugue to explain why she should not
be terminated for continued absences without official leave. Sugue failed to comply, thus, her employment was terminated
for abandonment of work.

The following day Valderrama commenced his employment as Sales Director of Fila Phils., Inc., a competitior of Triumph.

Labor Arbiter rendered a decision, declaring that Sugue and Valderrama were constructively dismissed.

Triumph filed an appeal with the NLRC, NLRC granted Triumph’s the appeal and reversed the ruling of Labor Arbiter . Sugue
and Valderrama elevated the matter to the CA by way of a petition for certiorari. While the matter was pending with the CA,
Valderrama passed away and notice of his death was filed by his counsel.

CA partly granted, set aside NLRC and the decision of labor arbiter is reinstated, hence this petition.

Issue:

Whether or not Valderama and Sugue were constructively dismissed, and are entitled to separation pay, backwages and
damages.

Ruling:

We find sufficient reasons to uphold Triumphs position. Constructive dismissal is defined as an involuntary resignation
resorted to when continued employment becomes impossible, unreasonable or unlikely; when there is a demotion in rank or
a diminution in pay; or when a clear discrimination, insensibility or disdain by an employer becomes unbearable to an
employee.

The court can conceive of no reason to ascribe bad faith or malice to Triumph for charging to the leave credits of Sugue and
Valderrama the half-day that they spent in attending the preliminary conference of the case they instituted against Triumph.
It is fair and reasonable for Triumph to do so considering that Sugue and Valderrama did not perform work for one-half day
on June 19, 2000.

We cannot uphold the CAs approval of the Labor Arbiters finding that the memoranda issued by Triumph in connection with
the June 19, 2000 hearing constitute undue harassment.

To begin with, the complained of Memorandum issued by Mr. Escueta, regarding the company policy that required
department heads to give prior notice to the General Manager if they will be away from the office during office hours, did
not single out Sugue and Valderrama but was addressed to all department heads.
Anent Sugue and Valderrama’s claim that they were unjustly denied availment of their leaves as part of a scheme on the part
of Triumph to harass them. The record, however, reveals that he failed to comply with the company’s requirement for the
application for sick leave for two or more days must be supported by a medical certificate, which must be verified by the
company physician.

Discrimination is the failure to treat all persons equally when no reasonable distinction can be found between those favored
and those not favored. As for the nature of the condition itself, we do not see how it can be deemed unreasonable or in bad
faith for the employer to require its employee to complete her assignments on time or before taking a vacation leave.

It is worth stressing that in the grant of vacation and sick leave privileges to an employee, the employer is given leeway to
impose conditions on the entitlement, as the grant of vacation and sick leave is not a standard of law, but a prerogative of
management. It is a mere concession or act of grace of the employer and not a matter of right on the part of the employee.
Thus, it is well within the power and authority of an employer to deny an employee’s application for leave and the same
cannot be perceived as discriminatory or harassment.

Worth noting at this point is that as early as June 21, 2000, Valderrama had accepted employment with Fila Philippines, Inc.
as its Sales Director. Although his appointment was to take effect only on August 1, 2000, it cannot be denied that he had
finalized or was finalizing his employment deal with Fila while he was still employed with Triumph.

Further, they filed a complaint for constructive dismissal without praying for reinstatement. By analogy, we point to the
doctrine that abandonment of work is inconsistent with the filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal is not applicable where
the complainant does not pray for reinstatement and just asks for separation pay instead In this case, Sugue and Valderrama
opted not to ask for reinstatement and even for separation pay, which clearly contradicts their stance that they did not
abandon their work, for it appears they have no intention of ever returning to their positions in Triumph.

Principle:

Indeed, the law imposes many obligations on the employer such as providing just compensation to workers, and observance
of the procedural requirements of notice and hearing in the termination of employment. On the other hand, the law also
recognizes the right of the employer to expect from its workers not only good performance, adequate work and diligence,
but also good conduct and loyalty. The employer may not be compelled to continue to employ such persons whose
continuance in the service will patently be inimical to his interests.