By Atty. Julius Gregory B. Delgado
JONATHAN BARTOLOME VS. TOYOTA QUEZON AVENUE, INC., ET AL.: G.R. NO. 254465 (APRIL 3, 2024): UNSAVORY REMARKS AND HARSH TREATMENT BY THE EMPLOYER CREATES A HOSTILE ENVIRONMENT FOR THE EMPLOYEE AMOUNTING TO CONSTRUCTIVE DISMISSAL
Sometime in March 2009, petitioner Jonathan Bartolome was hired by respondent Toyota Quezon Avenue, Inc. (TQAI) as a marketing professional trainee of its Vehicles Sales Department. In August 2010, he became a regular employee with the assigned task of selling Toyota brand cars, products, and services. Bartolome received from the Human Resources Department Notice of Decision for Habitual Absences for the month of October 2015, Notice of Explanation for Habitual Absences for the month of November 2015 and another Notice suspending him for seven days for a third offense. Bartolome sent his reply to these notices and had a meeting with management wherein he was assisted by his sibling who is a lawyer. Bartolome thought everything would be fine but during one of the marketing professionals’ meetings, the President of respondent TQAI, Lincoln T. Lim, uttered unsavory remarks directed at Bartolome berating him for bringing his sibling during the administrative hearing.
On January 25, 2016, an incident happened wherein Bartolome processed a sale of a vehicle, but the client was already on board when he handed the transaction documents and took away the leather cover seat which is not part of the package. Bartolome requested an investigation, but TQAI Group Retail Manager Josefina De Jesus uttered unsavory remark against him and eventually the said leather cover seat was paid for by De Jesus thereby making it appear that Bartolome is solely liable for the said incident. Subsequently, many of his accounts were withdrawn and transferred to another marketing professional and De Jesus said that it was the President who does not want Bartolome to handle his accounts.
There was also one occasion wherein TQAI General Sales Manager Esteban Dela Paz stopped one of his transactions stating that he can release a vehicle but the same should be processed under the name of another marketing professional. Dela Paz would then subsequently refuse to sign off his sales proposal and pushed his unit allocation to the end of the line each time despite the “first to submit/pay reservation” policy. Bartolome was also transferred to another team and his new superior under the new team asked him if he will resign making it clear that his transfer was intended for him to resign. Bartolome’s subsequent performance rating also started to dip lower than the previous ones and he received a Notice to Explain for failure to hit his quota for February 2016. He was also advised that for him to release vehicles, he must meet or exceed his quota for February 2016.
Because of the hostile environment, Bartolome was forced to resign. During the processing of his clearance, Bartolome alleged that the harassment continued and the last pay he received did not include his 13th Month Pay and earned commissions. Bartolome filed a Complaint with the National Labor Relations Commission. The Labor Arbiter decided in favor of Bartolome holding that there is constructive dismissal. NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s ruling but was reversed by the Court of Appeals.
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Bartolome and held that acts of disdain and hostile behavior such as demotion, insulting words, asking for resignation, and apathetic conduct towards an employee constitutes constructive dismissal. The Court held that the test of the existence of constructive dismissal is “whether a reasonable person in the employee’s position would have felt compelled to give up [their] employment under the circumstances?” The Court held that strong words from the employer without palpable reason or are expressed only for the purpose of degrading the dignity of the employee will create a hostile work environment which would amount to constructive dismissal.
The Supreme Court also highlighted the fact that the version of the employee was credible, candid and straightforward and was not refuted on the part of the respondents. Respondents did not offer any affidavit to support their version of their events or explain their side. Hence, petitioner’s factual version should be accorded with respect and credence. The Court held that with the respondents’ resources and availability of witnesses, they could have easily harnessed and secured but opted not to.