Robinsons Galleria/Robinsons Supermarket Corp.

v Sanchez
Topic: Constructive dismissal/Preventive suspension

FACTS:

Respondent Irene Sanchez was a probationary employee of

Petitioner Robinsons for a period of 5 months, she underwent 6
weeks of training before she was hired
Two weeks after she was hired, she reported the loss of Php 20, 000
to her supervisor, she was promptly strip-searched by the guards
but nothing was found on her
Respondent acknowledged her responsibility and requested that she
be allowed to settle and pay the amount lost but petitioner did not
heed her
An information was filed against respondent and she was jailed for
two weeks for failure to post bail (40,000)
She then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, and petitioners
subsequently sent her a notice of termination and/or notice of
expiration of probationary employment
The Labor Arbiter dismissed the illegal dismissal complaint for lack
of merit, she had filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before she
was terminated from employment
On appeal to the NLRC, the decision was reversed. Robinsons was
ordered to reinstate the respondent and to pay full backwages
computed from the time she was constructively dismissed on the
day she was strip searched
NLRC also ruled that respondent was denied due process when she
was strip searched and sent to jail for two weeks, amounting to
constructive dismissal
Petitioners filed an MR but was promptly denied by the NLRC,
petitioners then filed a petition for certiorari before the CA which
affirmed the decision of the NLRC
Petitioners filed an MR which was denied, hence the petition

ISSUE:

Was Irene Sanchez illegally terminated by Robinsons?

HELD:

YES. Sanchez was illegally terminated because she was denied due
process. Administrative investigation was not conducted by
Robinsons. She was instantly reported to the police and suffered for
two weeks in jail.
 The court held that respondent was constructively dismissed when
she was strip searched and promptly sent to jail. It was
unreasonable for Robinsons to have expected her to report to work
when it was rendered unlikely and definitely impossible to do so.
As to the issue of reinstatement, the court held that when it is not a
viable solution separation may be resorted to.