​Agcolicol v. Casiño, June 15, 2016

Facts:
1. Casiño was hired by petitioner as Stock Custodian and Cook in the latter's Kubong Sawali Restaurant. Upon discovery of theft involving company property where respondent was allegedly a conspirator, a criminal complaint for qualified theft against him and his co-employees was filed.

2. Additionally, he and his co-employees were preventively suspended indefinitely pending investigation. He was informed of the suspension through a Memorandum Order dated November 27, 2012, effective the next day for an indefinite period of time.

3. Meanwhile, the criminal complaint for qualified theft was later dismissed for lack of basis.
​
4. Sometime thereafter, he received a letter where he was made to explain why his services should not be terminated for grave misconduct arising from the pilferages committed. This letter was addressed only to Lornboy (co-employee) but respondent considered said letter as a directive for him to give said explanation.

Issue:
Whether or not there was constructive dismissal .

Held:
Yes.
In the case at hand, there is no question that what was meted was an indefinite preventive suspension pending investigation as clearly stated in the Memorandum Order. This, in itself, is already a clear violation of the proscription against indefinite or prolonged preventive suspensions, making the suspension tantamount to constructive dismissal as repeatedly held by this Court in a long line of cases.