Respondent Hechanova was employed as head butcher of petitioner corporation. On March 2011, respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with claim for reinstatement and backwages. He contended that he was suspended for violating the regulation of SM Hypermarket prohibiting employees of concessionaires from tasting food peddled by some promodisers. After his suspension, he reported to the office of petitioner corporation for his reassignment but was told by its Employee Relation Supervisor that there was no available outlet yet.
Respondent then went to Raffy Tulfo who recommended him to file a complaint with the Department of Labor and Employment-CAMANAVA (DOLE-CAMANAVA) for illegal constructive dismissal alleging that he was not given any work assignment and was being forced to resign.
Petitioner contended that respondent was not dismissed and that he failed to report to work. In addition, respondent was allegedly banned from working at all Puregold outlets because a personnel at the said shop caught respondent urinating in the storage room where fresh food items were kept.
The Labor Arbiter ruled that respondent was illegally dismissed. The NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s ruling.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC’s findings and also noted that petitioner corporation failed to attach a copy of the board resolution authorizing a specific employee to represent the corporation in the suit. Petitioner corporation attached a copy of the Secretary’s Certificate attesting that under settled jurisprudence, a Secretary Certificate suffices to grant authority to a specific person in a corporation to represent the latter in a suit.
Issues:
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in its finding that there was no competent evidence of identity and the board resolution authorizing the Vice President of petitioner corporation to file the petition is contrary to facts;
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in declaring that a copy of the board resolution itself, authorizing the person acting in its behalf should be appended to the petition;
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not resolving the case on the merits
Ruling:
The Court denied the petition.
It found that there were no procedural defects in the petition for certiorari as it was settled in several cases that a Secretary’s Certificate is sufficient proof of authority for a person named on it to represent a corporation in a suit.
The Corporation Code states that a corporation exercises its powers and transacts its business through its board of directors or trustees. In order for a person to represent a corporation in a suit, a board resolution authorizing the former to represent the latter is necessary. However, it is settled in jurisprudence that a Secretary’s Certificate may be appended to the petition in lieu of a board resolution.
It also found that the respondent was illegally dismissed.
In illegal dismissal cases, the employer bears the burden of proof that the employee’s termination was for a valid and authorized cause. All factual circumstances, taken together, led the NLRC to conclude that petitioner was giving respondent a hard time to make his employment unbearable, and eventually, force him to resign. The failure of petitioner to assign respondent to a specific branch without any justifiable reason constituted illegal constructive dismissal.
Constructive dismissal is defined as “a cessation of work because continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable, or unlikely.” It also happens “when an act of clear discrimination, insensibility or disdain by an employer has become so unbearable to the employee leaving him with no option but to forego with his continued employment”.
