Understanding Constructive Illegal Dismissal: Demotion, Verbal Abuse, and Indifference from Employers
Bartolome v. Toyota Quezon Avenue, Inc. et al., G.R. No. 254465, April 3, 2024
Key takeaway
If an employer creates unbearable working conditions, like demotion, verbal abuse, or indifferent treatment, leading an employee to resign, it’s called constructive dismissal. The Supreme Court ruled that Jonathan Dy Chua Bartolome was a victim of this.
The Facts:
Bartolome was hired by Toyota Quezon Avenue, Inc. (TQAI) in 2010 as a regular employee, responsible for selling Toyota cars and services. His work environment took a sharp turn in 2015 when he was suspended for absences. From there, things only got worse.
Hostile Treatment at Work:
Bartolome was publicly humiliated when he brought his lawyer-sibling to a company meeting. The TQAI President called him out during a separate meeting with these words: “Kung hindi ba kayo nagaabsent gagawa ba kami ng paraan, kung sinusunod nyo nyo (sic) protocol natin gagawa ba kami ng paraan? Ayaw naman naming kayo higpitan kasi kailangan namin gawin. Bakit isa lang ba kayong empleyado sa opisinang ito, bakit only child ba kayo? Kung only child pwede kaso pag only child normally ano nangyayari pag only child "spoiled". Wag nyo naman kami subukan, tapos magdadala kayo ng tatay/nanay para isumbong kami, tapos icc: nyo kung sino man dapat nyo icc.” This public shaming set the tone for further ill-treatment.
His work environment became increasingly hostile. For instance, Bartolome pressed for an investigation after a mistake involving a client’s car, only to be met with sarcasm by his manager: “alangan namang pati si Oda pagbayarin mo pa. Ano ba ang pinaglalaban mo?” This created the impression that Bartolome was to blame for something he didn’t even do. Another manager secretly paid for the error, but it only made Bartolome look guilty.
Bartolome’s accounts were also taken from him without any explanation. When he questioned this, the General Sales Manager replied dismissively: “ayaw ka na pahawakan ng accounts ni Boss Lincoln. Accounts nya yan. Siya ang may say.”
In another instance, Bartolome tried to process a sale for one of his remaining clients, but his boss refused to sign off on it, saying,- “hindi ka pwede magrelease sa kliyenteng ito. Pwede mo iprocess pero ipangalan mo sa iba.” This left Bartolome powerless to do his job.
To add insult to injury, his new supervisor directly asked him, “ano plano mo, magreresign ka?” — a clear sign that they were pushing him out.
Resignation and Complaint
These actions left Bartolome feeling helpless, and he eventually resigned in 2016. When he attempted to get his clearance, he was treated as if he were a criminal, facing harassment for no reason.
After his resignation, Bartolome filed a complaint for constructive dismissal, claiming he was forced out of his job due to the unbearable conditions.
Court Proceedings:
The Labor Arbiter ruled in Bartolome's favor, finding that the conditions created by TQAI led to his resignation. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) agreed with this decision. However, the Court of Appeals reversed it, saying Bartolome resigned voluntarily.
Finally, the Supreme Court sided with Bartolome, ruling that his resignation was indeed forced. The Court noted that the hostile treatment Bartolome received—including insulting remarks, and indifferent behavior—made his work life unbearable. The Court emphasized that when an employer's actions make it impossible for an employee to continue working, it’s a case of constructive dismissal.
Final Ruling
The Court ordered TQAI and its officials to compensate Bartolome for full backwages, separation pay, earned commissions, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees.
In the end, the Supreme Court made it clear: employers cannot force employees out through harassment and unfair treatment. Constructive dismissal is illegal, and employees have the right to seek justice.
DISCLAIMER: This summary is based on the author’s own legal analysis and interpretation of the Supreme Court's decision. For clarity, the full text of the decision takes precedence.