Gabrillo v. Tri-J Marketing (2026)

See: Original Decision

Gabrillo v. Tri-J Marketing, G.R. No. 279863, August 26, 2026, Per Hernando, J.:

1. Background

• Tri-J Marketing, Inc. (Tri-J) [Employer] is a joint venture corporation owned and managed by its founder, Angel Guadalquiver (Guadalquiver), and his children. It is engaged in vehicle repair services and the sale of automotive accessories through seven branches in Cebu City, employing approximately 4,000 workers.

• Gabrillo [Employee] had been employed by Tri-J since 1997. During his more than 20 years of service, he received several loyalty and service awards and eventually became team leader of the tire recapping section. His duties included inspecting tires, removing worn-out treads from used tires (moldblows), and bonding fresh layers of rubber, including “camelbacks,” onto existing tire casings to produce recapped tires. In essence, all recapping operations involving moldblow tires fell within his area of responsibility.

• An audit later revealed alleged discrepancies in the inventory of camelback materials used in the recapping operations. Consequently, on January 4, 2019, Gabrillo was served with a Notice to Explain concerning discrepancies in the measurements and weight of the camelbacks. He thereafter submitted his written explanation.

• According to Gabrillo, following the audit, management began pressuring him to resign under threat of criminal prosecution for alleged losses amounting to approximately PHP 400,000.00. During the first week of February 2019, Guadalquiver summoned him to his office and informed him that substantial losses had been incurred in the recapping department involving camelbacks and moldblows. Guadalquiver allegedly accused Gabrillo of selling these materials to customers. Gabrillo denied the accusation, asserting that such activity would have been impossible because the premises were monitored by closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras and the removal of company property required gate passes.[10]

• Gabrillo further alleged that Guadalquiver became angry and urged him to resign to “clear his name.” In a subsequent meeting, Guadalquiver allegedly presented him with a prepared resignation letter and reiterated that criminal charges would be filed should he refuse to resign. He was likewise told that voluntary resignation would entitle him to separation pay corresponding to his 21 years of service.

• According to Gabrillo, management initially offered him PHP 148,000.00 as separation pay, which he briefly considered. The offer was later reduced to PHP 30,000.00 as financial assistance, which he declined. Guadalquiver thereafter made a final offer of PHP 50,000.00, allegedly telling Gabrillo to accept the amount as an “act of mercy” and to resign, otherwise criminal charges for theft will be filed against him. Gabrillo consistently denied the accusations and refused to resign.

• Meanwhile, the Human Resources (HR) Department repeatedly followed up on the supposed agreement between Gabrillo and Guadalquiver. According to Gabrillo, no agreement was ever reached. Nevertheless, he continued receiving text messages informing him that his financial assistance had already been processed and would be released upon his signing of a resignation letter.

• On February 4, 2019, Gabrillo received the following text message from the HR Department:

Good afternoon Sir. This is Ruffa. Can we make a follow up regarding your decision as what you have agreed with Sir Angel sir?

• Pending the investigation, Gabrillo was placed under preventive suspension. Having returned to his hometown, he experienced connectivity issues. Nonetheless, on February 11, 2019, he sent the following message to the HR Department:

Make it sure now because … I didn’t receive a memo that I could no longer report back for work.

• The HR Department replied:

Yes, Sir but as we’ve said you are still paid even though you did not report for duty because your disciplinary action is still under investigation.

• The HR Department thereafter continued asking him to choose between resigning and proceeding with the investigation, coupled with the possibility of a criminal prosecution. Throughout this period, he maintained his refusal to sign any resignation letter.

• When Gabrillo reported for work on February 11, 2019, he claimed that he was no longer allowed to enter the workplace and was informed that he had been dismissed. Two days later, on February 13, 2019, he received another text message from Tri-J, which read:

Good morning [S]ir. Can I make a follow [up] when can you and your wife visit regarding the termination notice?

• Hence, Gabrillo filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with claims for separation pay, moral damages and attorney’s fees.

• For its part, Tri-J denied having dismissed Gabrillo, who occupied the position of Recapping-in-Charge. It maintained that the inventory discrepancies discovered during the audit merely prompted an administrative investigation, during which Gabrillo was afforded notice and an opportunity to explain.

• According to Tri-J, on December 28, 2018, employees Fernando Cabaral and Floro Yap submitted reports concerning suspicious activities in the recapping section allegedly involving Gabrillo. This prompted Guadalquiver to convene a meeting, refer the matter to the HR Department, and issue a Notice to Explain, which accused Gabrillo of committing alleged irregularities, namely: (1) the measurements and weights of the camelback were “confused” and messy; and (2) rejected items were loaded with recapped tires in the delivery vehicle.

• Gabrillo received the Notice to Explain on January 4, 2019, but allegedly failed to submit his explanation within the prescribed period. The notice likewise warned that his failure to submit an explanation and to attend the scheduled conference would be construed as an admission of the charges.

• Consequently, the HR Department scheduled a hearing on January 11, 2019. Gabrillo attended the conference and subsequently submitted his written explanation on January 14, 2019, denying any involvement in the alleged irregularities.

• On January 16, 2019, Tri-J issued a second notice of conference, which Gabrillo allegedly refused to receive. Management nevertheless proceeded with the conference.

• About a week later, Guadalquiver again met with Gabrillo. During the meeting, Guadalquiver allegedly offered him two options: (1) voluntarily resign and receive PHP 50,000.00 as financial assistance, together with his mandatory employment benefits; or (2) undergo the administrative process, in which case he would receive only his statutory final pay and 13th-month pay. Tri-J alleged that Gabrillo rejected the offer and instead demanded separation pay of at least PHP 100,000.00.

• Tri-J further claimed that, during the course of the investigation, Gabrillo ceased reporting for work and thereby abandoned his employment. It maintained that no formal dismissal was ever implemented, although a notice of termination had been prepared but was never served.

2. SC Decision / Resolution

• Here, the totality of the circumstances establishes that [the Employee] was constructively dismissed.

[No voluntary resignation]

• First, [the Employer]’s conduct effectively deprived [the Employee] of any meaningful choice but to resign. He was repeatedly confronted with allegations of substantial financial losses and was urged to resign under threat of criminal prosecution. Objectively viewed, these circumstances rendered continued employment no longer reasonable or viable. Although [the Employee] consistently denied the accusations and refused to resign, the ultimatum presented to him—resignation or criminal prosecution—cannot be regarded as a voluntary choice. Such coercive conduct is sufficient to constitute constructive dismissal.

• To be sure, the Comi recognizes that an employer may, during an ongoing administrative investigation, offer an employee the option to resign as a means of effecting an amicable separation. Such an option, however, must be genuinely voluntary, free from coercion, and completely open to refusal. Here, the purported choice was not voluntary but coercive. The repeated threats of criminal prosecution transformed what appeared to be an option into an ultimatum incompatible with the voluntariness required of a valid resignation.

[No valid and just cause for dismissal]

• Second, [the Employer] failed to discharge its burden of proving a valid and just cause for dismissal. In illegal dismissal cases, the employer bears the burden of proving by substantial evidence that the dismissal was for a just or authorized cause. Absent such proof, the dismissal is illegal.

• The NLRC correctly found that the accusations against [the Employee] were vague and unsupported by substantial evidence. While the alleged discrepancies in the company’s inventory justified an administrative investigation, neither the Notice to Explain nor any other evidence identified the specific acts personally attributable to [the Employee] that would warrant dismissal. The Court quotes with approval the NLRC’s findings:

It is difficult to understand what [the] [the Employer]s meant to convey in the notice to explain. They did not bother to explain why the acts attributed to complainant, which seemed so inconsequential, were considered so serious as to warrant the penalty of dismissal. They did not bother to explain why all the blame was heaped on complainant Gabrillo even when there were apparently many other employees in the recapping department who may be responsible for the alleged irregularities. In fact, one of said employee, Mr. F. Cabaral, even “verbalize[d] his own error in not indicating or documenting rejec[t] tire/s scraps or mold blows”.

• Neither could [the Employer] validly invoke loss of trust and confidence. To sustain a dismissal on this ground under Article 297 of the Labor Code, the employer must establish by substantial evidence that the employee committed a willful breach of the trust reposed in him. Mere suspicion, speculation, or unsubstantiated accusations are insufficient.

• Even assuming arguendo that [the Employee] occupied a position of trust and confidence, [the Employer] still failed to present substantial evidence linking him to any deliberate misconduct. Aside from an unauthenticated job description, which was not shown to have been furnished to [the Employee], [the Employer] presented no competent evidence establishing either the fiduciary character of his position or his participation in the alleged irregularities. The employer’s evidence must be genuine and founded on clearly established facts, not on conjecture or suspicion. [the Employer] failed to satisfy this evidentiary standard.

[No abandonment of employment]

• Neither can it be concluded that [the Employee] abandoned his employment.

• Abandonment requires the concurrence of two elements: (1) the employee’s failure to report for work without valid or justifiable reason; and (2) a clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship, manifested by overt acts. The burden of proving abandonment rests upon the employer.

• That burden was not discharged in this case. Gabrillo consistently denied the accusations against him and refused to resign despite repeated pressure from management. More importantly, his prompt filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal is wholly inconsistent with an intention to abandon his employment, as it clearly demonstrates his desire to preserve—not sever—the employer-employee relationship.

[No due process]

• Finally, [the Employer] failed to observe the requirements of procedural due process.

• Although it initially served a Notice to Explain, the accusations contained therein were couched in general terms and failed to sufficiently apprise [the Employee] of the specific acts for which he was being investigated. More importantly, instead of completing the disciplinary process in accordance with law, [the Employer] repeatedly attempted to secure [the Employee]’s resignation through threats of criminal prosecution while withholding a definitive resolution of the administrative proceedings. Compliance with the twin-notice requirement and the opportunity to be heard are indispensable components of procedural due process. The above only bolster the finding that indeed, [the Employee] has been constructively dismissed.