G.R. No. 218384 - JOHN L. BORJA AND AUBREY L. BORJA/DONG JUAN, VS. RANDY B. MIÑOZA AND ALAINE S. BANDALAN.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, it directed petitioners to pay: ( a ) Miñoza the amounts of P14,820.00 as separation pay, P10,983.05 as 13 th month pay, and P2,194.50 as service incentive leave pay; and ( b ) Bandalan the amounts of P7,410.00 as separation pay, and P4,199.00 as 13 th month pay. [39] The NLRC found that respondents were not constructively dismissed on the basis of the following circumstances: first , there was nothing wrong or irregular for an employer to hold meetings with its employees if only to monitor their performance or allow them an avenue to air their grievances; second , there was likewise nothing wrong if an employer issues memoranda to its employees, as a means of exercising control over them; and third , similarly, the conduct of a drug test is within the prerogative of the employer in order to ensure that its employees are fit to remain in its employ. The NLRC stressed that petitioners also have a business interest to protect and recognized that employers have free rein to regulate all aspects of employment including the prerogative to instill discipline and to impose penalties on errant employees. [40] As regards respondents' allegations that they were threatened, intimidated, and barred entry into the restaurant, the NLRC rejected them for lack of substantiation. [41] The presence of Opura was a preventive measure that the NLRC found justified to avert possible harassment in the work premises which cannot be construed as a means to specifically threaten or intimidate respondents. The NLRC noted the evidence [42] presented by petitioners that Bandalan had previously burned and threatened a co­-employee; hence, petitioners cannot be blamed for wanting to ensure a safe and orderly work place. Thus, the NLRC concluded that Opura's presence did not create a hostile work environment for respondents; neither was it proven that they hurled threats against respondents, having been rebutted by evidence presented by petitioners. [43] Perforce, no constructive dismissal transpired in this case. However, the NLRC held that respondents did not go on AWOL beginning April 7, 2011. Citing jurisprudence, the NLRC ruled that a charge of abandonment is inconsistent with the filing of a complaint for constructive dismissal. Moreover, respondents' prayer for reinstatement belies petitioners' claim of abandonment. [44] Considering that neither constructive dismissal nor abandonment existed in this case, the NLRC held that reinstatement is in order. However, under the doctrine of strained relations, separation pay may be awarded in lieu of reinstatement, as in this case. [45] Finally, finding the absence of constructive dismissal, the NLRC deleted the award of moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees. However, it affirmed the awards for 13 th month pay for both respondents and service incentive leave pay for Miñoza alone. [46] Respondents moved for reconsideration, [47] which the NLRC denied in a Resolution [48] dated June 29, 2012; hence, the recour