Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

HYATT TAXI SERVICES INC. v. RUSTOM M. CATINOY

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 193421 2014-06-04	MCMER CORPORATION v. NLRC PERALTA, J.
In Siemens Philippines, Inc. v. Domingo,[43] we have declared that "an employee who is forced to surrender his position through the employer's unfair or unreasonable acts is deemed to have been illegally terminated and such termination is deemed to be involuntary."[44] Constructive dismissal does not always involve forthright dismissal or diminution in rank, compensation, benefit and privileges. There may be 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 could foreclose any choice by him except to forego his continued employment.[45]
	GR No. 185549 2013-08-07	VICENTE ANG v. CEFERINO SAN JOAQUIN DEL CASTILLO, J.
"Constructive dismissal 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."[51] It is a "dismissal in disguise or an act amounting to dismissal but made to appear as if it were not."[52] Constructive dismissal may likewise exist if an "act of clear discrimination, insensibility, or disdain by an employer becomes so unbearable on the part of the employee that it could foreclose any choice by him except to forego his continued employment."[53] "Constructive dismissal exists when the employee involuntarily resigns due to the harsh, hostile, and unfavorable conditions set by the employer."[54] "The test of constructive dismissal is whether a reasonable person in the employee's position would have felt compelled to give up his position under the circumstances."[55]
	GR No. 174208 2012-01-25	JONATHAN V. MORALES v. HARBOUR CENTRE PORT TERMINAL PEREZ, J.
Constructive dismissal exists where there is cessation of work because "continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely, as an offer involving a demotion in rank or a diminution in pay"[30] and other benefits. Aptly called a dismissal in disguise or an act amounting to dismissal but made to appear as if it were not,[31] constructive dismissal may, likewise, exist if an act of clear discrimination, insensibility, or disdain by an employer becomes so unbearable on the part of the employee that it could foreclose any choice by him except to forego his continued employment.[32] In cases of a transfer of an employee, the rule is settled that the employer is charged with the burden of proving that its conduct and action are for valid and legitimate grounds such as genuine business necessity[33] and that the transfer is not unreasonable, inconvenient or prejudicial to the employee. If the employer cannot overcome this burden of proof, the employee's transfer shall be tantamount to unlawful constructive dismissal.[34]
	GR No. 174141 2009-06-26	PENTAGON STEEL CORPORATION v. CA BRION, J.
A dismissal effected through the fig leaf of an alleged violation of a company directive is no less than an actual illegal dismissal that jurisprudence has labeled as a constructive dismissal. Hyatt Taxi Services, Inc. v. Catinoy[27] describes this type of company action when it ruled that "[c]onstructive dismissal does not always involve forthright dismissal or diminution in rank, compensation, benefit and privileges - there may be 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 could foreclose any choice by him except to forego his continued employment."
	GR NOS. 146653-54 2006-02-20	WESTMONT PHARMACEUTICALS v. RICARDO C. SAMANIEGO SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
[7] Hyatt Taxi Services, Inc. v. Catinoy, G.R. No. 143204, June 26, 2001, 359 SCRA 686.
	GR NO. 155279 2005-10-11	MICRO SALES OPERATION NETWORK v. NLRC QUISUMBING, J.
Petitioners failed to prove that de Castro abandoned his job. A clear intention to end the employer-employee relationship is missing. He did not report for work simply because he was indefinitely suspended. Moreover, the fact that de Castro filed a case for illegal dismissal against petitioners belies abandonment.[21]
	GR No. 151228 2002-08-15	ROLANDO Y. TAN v. LEOVIGILDO LAGRAMA MENDOZA, J.
the second element as the more determinative factor and being manifested by some overt acts.[25] Mere absence is not sufficient. What is more, the burden is on the employer to show a deliberate and unjustified refusal on the part of the employee to resume his employment without any intention of returning.[26] In the case at bar, the Court of Appeals correctly ruled: Neither do we agree that Petitioner abandoned his job. In order for abandonment to be a just and valid ground for dismissal, the employer must show, by clear proof, the intention of the employee to abandon his job. . . .