Dreamland Hotel Resort V Johnson
Dreamland Hotel Resort V Johnson
Dreamland Hotel Resort V Johnson
Johnson
G.R. No. 191455
March 12, 2014
Group 3
FACTS
Petitioners’ side
1. Dreamland is a corporation engaged in the hotel, restaurant and allied business.
a. President and CEO: petitioner Westley J. Prentice
2. Respondent Stephen B. Johnson is an Australian citizen who came to the Philippines as a
businessman/investor without the authority to be employed as the employee/officer of any
business as he was not able to secure his Alien Employment Permit
3. As a fellow Australian citizen, Johnson was able to convince Prentice to accept his offer to invest
in Dreamland and at the same time provide his services as Operations Manager of Dreamland
with a promise that he will secure an AEP and Tax Identification Number (TIN) prior to his
assumption of work
4. June 21, 2007: Prentice and Johnson entered into an Employment Agreement
a. Johnson will serve as Operations Manager from August 1, 2007
b. Serve for 3 years
5. Respondent Johnson promised he would provide the AEP and TIN within 1 month from signing
because the application for both were still under process thus agreed that efficacy of agreement
shall begin after 1 month or on August 1, 2007
6. October 8, 2007: Prentice asked for AEP and TIN several times but Johnson gave excuses and
promised to give the requirements
a. Believing Johnson, Dreamland commenced operations
7. Johnson worked as Operations Manager for 3 weeks until he suddenly abandoned his work and
subsequently resigned starting November 3, 2007
a. Never reported back
Complaint
1. January 31, 2008: Johnson filed a Complaint for illegal dismissal and nonpayment of salaries,
among others
2. LA: DISMISSED for lack of merit, finding that respondent voluntarily resigned and wasn’t
illegally dismissed
3. NLRC: REVERSED LA. Respondent was constructively dismissed for nonpayment of salary for
3 months. No proof that petitioners received Php172k from respondents, evidence on record
shows petitioners received only Php7.2k
4. CA: DISMISSED the petition for certiorari and MR
5. Petitioners filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari
PROCEDURAL
W/N the CA committed a reversible error in outrightly dismissing the petition for certiorari. YES
SUBSTANTIVE
I. W/N the employment of Johnson commenced only on October 8, 2007 and not on August 1,
2007. NO
1. Petitioners: paid the amount of Php7.2k to Johnson for 3 weeks of service from October 8, 2007
until Nov. 3, 2007 (date of resignation), which Johnson didn’t controvert
2. Answer of the SC:
a. Amount the petitioners paid to Johnson as his three-week salary is significantly deficient
as Johnson’s monthly salary as stipulated in their contract is P60k
b. Amount paid should’ve been Php45k
3. In light of this deficiency, there is more reason to believe that the petitioners withheld the salary
of Johnson without a valid reason
III. W/N employment contract executed by the parties is inefficacious because the employment
contract is subject to the presentation of Johnson of his Alien Employment Permit (AEP)
and Tax Identification Number (TIN). NO
1. Johnson has adduced proof that as a permanent resident, he is exempted from the requirement of
securing an AEP as expressed under Department Order No. 75-06, Series of 2006 of the DOLE
2. Furthermore, Johnson submitted a Certification from DOLE Regional Office III, stating that he is
exempted from securing an AEP as a holder of Permanent Resident Visa.
3. Consequently, the condition imposed upon Johnson’s employment, if there is any, is in truth
without effect to its validity
4. Records show that Johnson secured his TIN only on Dec 2007 after his resignation but
nevertheless, this does not negate the fact that the contract of employment had already
become effective even prior to such date because there is no stipulation in the employment
contract itself that the same shall only be effective upon the submission of AEP and TIN
1. SC agrees with NLRC that “Even the most reasonable employee would consider quitting his job
after working for three months and receiving only an insignificant fraction of his salaries…”
2. Petitioners: considering that Johnson tendered his resignation and abandoned his work, it is his
burden to prove that his resignation was not voluntary on his part
3. SHS Perforated Materials, Inc. v. Diaz: “There is constructive dismissal if an act of clear
discrimination, insensibility, or disdain by an employer becomes so unbearable on the part of the
employee that it would foreclose any choice by him except to forego his continued
employment. It exists where there is cessation of work because continued employment is
rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely, as an offer involving a demotion in rank and a
diminution in pay.”
4. It is impossible, unreasonable or unlikely that any employee, such as Johnson would continue
working for an employer who does not pay him his salaries.
5. Applying Duldulao v. CA: the act of the petitioners in not paying Johnson his salaries for three
months has become unbearable on the latter’s part that he had no choice but to cede his
employment with them
6. The pertinent sections of Johnson’s resignation letter which reflects the real reason why he was
resigning as operations manager of the hotel:
a. “I hereby tender my resignation to you, Mr[.] Wes Prentice, Dreamland Resort, Subic,
Zambales, Philippines.
Since joining Dreamland Resort & Hotel over three months ago I have put my heart and
soul into the business. I have donated many hours of my personal time. I have frequently
worked seven days a week and twelve to thirteen hours a day. I am now literally
penniless, due totally to the fact that I have lent you and your resort/hotel well over
$200,000AU (approx 8 million pesos) and your nonpayment of wages to me from
1st August 2007 as per Employment Agreement. x x x.”
7. Letter shows that though Johnson tendered his resignation, it was due to the petitioners’ acts that
he was constrained to resign. The petitioners cannot expect Johnson to tolerate working for them
without any compensation.