Sugue vs. Triumph International (Phils.

), Inc
G.R. No. 164804 January 30, 2009

Facts:

Virginia Sugue (Sugue) and Renato Valderrama was the Marketing Services Manager and Direct
Sales Manager, respectively of Triumph. Beginning sometime in October 1999, Triumph’s top
management began to notice a sharp decline in the sales of the company.

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. They were directed to submit a written explanation as to why they used
company time and the company vehicle and driver in attending the preliminary conference at the
NLRC and why they left the office without advising the Managing Director. Hence, their absence was
charged to their vacation leave credits.

Valderrama request for sick leave was disapproved by Triumph because he failed to submit a
medical certificate as required by the company’s rules and policies. Triumph issued a show cause
memo to Valderrama requiring him to explain, among others, his department’s dismal performance
since October 1999, within 48 hours from receipt. On July 11, 2000, Valderrama replied to the show
cause memo.

Triumph issued a memorandum requiring Valderrama to explain, under pain of dismissal, his
continued absences without official leave. Valderrama failed to respond, thus, Triumph decided to
terminate Valderrama’s employment for abandonment of work.

Sugue’s charge of constructive dismissal was based on the fact that her request for vacation leave
from July 14 to 15, 2000 was subject to the condition that she first submit a report on the
company’s 2001 Marketing Plan. Also, the approval of her request for executive check-up was
deferred. Then, she received a memorandum instructing her to report to Mr. Efren 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, on September 1, 2000, her employment was
terminated for abandonment of work.

Prior to the actual termination of their employment by Triumph, Sugue and Valderrama filed a
complaint for constructive dismissal against Triumph.

Issue:

Whether Valderrama and Sugue were constructively dismissed by Triumph?

Ruling:
No.

Constructive dismissal is defined as an involuntary resignation resorted to when continued

This is not a case of constructive dismissal but rather a case of abandonment on the part of
Valderama and Sugue.

1. The half-day he spent in attending the NLRC hearing on June 19, 2000 was charged to
Valderama and Sugue’s vacation leave credit – No bad faith or malice

When the case of strikes, and according to the CIR even if the strike is legal, strikers may not
collect their wages during the days they did not go to work, for the same reasons if not
more, laborers who voluntarily absent themselves from work to attend the hearing of a case
in which they seek to prove and establish their demands against the company, the legality
and propriety of which demands is not yet known, should lose their pay during the period of
such absence from work.

In a case where a laborer absents himself from work because of a strike or to attend a
conference or hearing in a case or incident between him and his employer, he might seek
reimbursement of his wages from his union which had declared the strike or filed the case
in the industrial court. Or, in the present case, he might have his absence from his work
charged against his vacation leave (J.B. Heilbronn Co. v. National Labor Union).

* 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.

The memoranda of Mr. Funtila, requiring Sugue and Valderrama to inform the office of the
General Manager of their whereabouts on the morning of June 19, 2000, could not be
deemed a form of harassment but rather it was in keeping with due process.
Notwithstanding the fact that the company had received summons for the same hearing, the
company could not simply assume that the hearing was the reason for Valderrama and
Sugue’s absence. When an employer believes that there has been a possible violation of
company rules or policies, the law, in fact, requires the employer to give the employee
ample opportunity to explain.

2. Valderama’s application for sick leave for July 3 to 5, 2000 was disapproved
 The record reveals that he failed to comply with the company’s requirement that an
application for sick leave for two or more days must be supported by a medical
certificate which must be verified by the company physician. He was even given twenty-
four (24) hours to submit the same but he totally ignored it. That his sick leave application
was denied was mainly due to his own fault and must not be unduly blamed on his
employer.

3. The approval of Sugue’s application for leave of absence for July 14 and 15, 2000 was made
subject to the condition that she should first submit a report on the 2001 Marketing Plan.
There is nothing discriminatory in such a condition considering that she was unable to
show that she was the only employee whose leave application has been subjected to a
condition. Discrimination is the failure to treat all persons equally when no reasonable
distinction can be found between those favored and those not favored.

The court 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.
Being the Marketing Services Manager, Sugue’s reports were indispensable in the
preparation of the 2001 Marketing Plan plus the fact that the company had been
experiencing a significant decline in sales at that time which all the more emphasizes
the need for her to submit an updated report relative to the 2001 Initial Marketing
Plan. For sure, she failed to show that the company prevented her from availing of her
vacation leave afterwards or at some other time. Clearly then, there was no discrimination
nor harassment to speak of.

4. The approval of Sugue’s request for executive check-up was deferred until after the visit of
the company’s regional marketing manager; and
It should be noted that Triumph did not completely turn down their request. Based on
Sugue and Valderrama’s own evidence, their request was merely deferred because the
2001 Initial Marketing Plan was due on June 26, 2000 and Triumph’s regional
product manager was scheduled to visit the country on June 26 to 29, 2000. As
Valderrama was the Direct Sales Manager and Sugue was the Marketing Services Manager,
their presence on those dates was undoubtedly needed. Thus, their contention that the
approval of their request was indefinitely withheld is apocryphal. In fact, there is nothing
that prevented them from scheduling their executive check-up after the visit of the regional
marketing manager.

5. A memorandum was issued instructing her to report to her former assistant, Mr. Temblique,
which was allegedly tantamount to a demotion.
In view of Valderrama’s sudden severance of his employment coupled with the substantially
low sales Triumph had been experiencing for the past nine months, the company saw an
imperative need to effect a reorganization in its sales department, and this included the
 temporary designation of Temblique as OIC for Marketing concurrently with his position as
Assistant Manager for Direct Sales-SMSD.44 When Sugue was directed to report to
Temblique, she was not being made to report to Temblique as Assistant Manager for Direct
Sales-SMSD but as the newly designated OIC for Marketing, i.e., the officer chiefly
responsible for all marketing matters. Furthermore, we find no merit in Sugue’s contention
that she was in any way stripped of her usual functions.

Abandonment Exist In This Case

For abandonment to be a valid ground for dismissal, two elements must then be satisfied: (1) the
failure to report for work or absence without valid or justifiable reason; and (2) a clear intention to
sever the employer-employee relationship. The second element is the more determinative factor
and must be evinced by overt acts.

The abovementioned elements are present in the instant case. First, Sugue and Valderrama’s failure
to report for work was without justifiable reason. As earlier discussed, their allegation of
discrimination and harassment lacks factual basis, thus, under the circumstances, we find their
absences to be unjustified and without any valid reason. Second, their overt act of writing letters
informing Triumph that they considered themselves constructively dismissed was a clear
manifestation of their intention to desist from their employment. Too, their defiance and disregard
of the memorandum sent by Triumph requiring them to explain their unauthorized absences
demonstrated a clear intention on their part to sever their employer-employee relationship. This is
particularly true with Valderrama who, even before unilaterally terminating his employment with
Triumph, had already sought regular employment elsewhere and in fact was set to join a
competitor, Fila Phils., Inc.

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. Triumph has adequately
shown the existence of a just and valid cause in terminating the employment of Sugue and
Valderrama, and has faithfully complied with the procedural requirements of due process for valid
termination of employment.