Cited Laws
accordingly ordered respondents to reinstate him and pay him full backwages in the amount of P139,256.00. On appeal by respondents, the NLRC reversed the Decision of the Labor Arbiter by Resolution dated May 25, 2006, [12] ruling that there was no termination of employment. It accordingly directed petitioner to report back to work. In finding for respondents, the NLRC held that, among other things, there is substantial evidence that petitioner was not dismissed. It gave probative weight to respondents' claim that petitioner suddenly stopped reporting for work after the incident with his fellow driver, respondents having presented in evidence the pertinent Sangguniang Barangay records. Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration [13] having been denied by Resolution of July 31, 2006 by the NLRC, [14] he appealed to the appellate court via Certiorari. [15] By Decision dated April 25, 2007, [16] the appellate court denied petitioner's appeal. It found, among other things, that even assuming that petitioner was required but refused to sign the Kasunduan, his refusal does not per se adequately support the charge of dismissal. The appellate court added that while technical rules on evidence are not strictly followed in the NLRC, a charge of dismissal must still be supported by substantial evidence at the very least, or such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration having been denied by Resolution of August 2, 2007, [17] he seeks relief from this Court. Petitioner contends, among other things, that the appellate court misappreciated the evidence adduced when it ruled that petitioner was not constructively dismissed; and that the employer bears the burden of proof to show that there was unjustified refusal to report for work. [18] Respondents, in their Comment, maintain that findings of fact of the appellate court are conclusive, they being supported by substantial evidence. [19] The petition fails. Considering that the NLRC reversed the findings of the Labor Arbiter, it behooves the Court to re-examine the records and resolve the conflicting rulings between the Labor Arbiter, on the one hand, and those of the NLRC and the appellate court, on the other. [20] The Court's examination of the records reveals that the factual findings of the NLRC, as affirmed by the appellate court, are supported by substantial evidence, hence, there is no cogent reason for the Court to modify or reverse the same. [21] Constructive dismissal is a cessation of work because continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely; when there is a demotion in rank or diminution in pay or both; or when a clear discrimination, insensibility, or disdain by an employer becomes unbearable to the employee. [22] The test of constructive dismissal is whether a reasonable person in the employee's position would have felt compelled to give up his job under the circumstances. [23] In the presen