Facts:

The petitioner hired the deceased respondent as security guard and assigned him
at East Greenhills Village. However, he was relieved from duty without any appar
ent reason. He was later informed by the management that he would no longer be g
iven any assignment because of his age. At that time, he was 42. His repeated re
quests for a new posting were likewise declined.
Due to his prolonged lack of assignment and dwindling resources, the respondent
was constrained to claim his security bond deposits from petitioners. However, h
e was advised to first tender a letter of resignation before the same could be r
eleased to him. Out of sheer necessity, he submitted a letter of resignation. He
stated therein that he was constrained to resign effective July 31, 2002 since
he cannot expect to be given any assignment for another one and a half months an
d that he can no longer afford the fare going to petitioners office. The responde
nt alleged that the tenor of his resignation letter was not acceptable to petiti
oners, who required him to submit another one stating that his resignation is vo
luntary. Eventually, petitioners released to the respondent his security bond de
posits.
The respondent took the case to the LA on the ground of illegal dismissal. The L
A ruled in his favor. The petitioner in this case took the matter to the NLRC wh
ich also ruled in favor of the respondent. Thereafter, the petitioner appealed t
he case on certriorari to the CA. During the pendency of the proceedings, the re
spondent died. An order was given out to find the heirs of the respondent. The C
A ruled in favor of the respondent.
Issue: W/N the the respondent was constructively dismissed.
Held: Yes.
There is constructive dismissal when an act of clear discrimination, insensitivi
ty or disdain on the part of the employer has become so unbearable as to leave a
n employee with no choice but to forego continued employment. In other words, Co
nstructive dismissal exists where there is cessation of work because continued e
mployment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely, as an offer involvin
g a demotion in rank and a diminution in pay.
In this case, the petitioners hinge their arguments on the alleged volunary resi
gnation of the respondent. This is insufficient to discharge the burden of provi
ng that there were no other posts available for the respondent after his recall
from his last assignment. Worse, no sufficient reason was given for his relief a
nd continued denial of a new assignment. And because of the dire financial strai
ts brought about by these unjustified acts of petitioners, respondent was forced
to resign and execute documents in a manner as directed by petitioners in order
to claim his security bond deposits. From these circumstances, petitioners claim
of voluntary resignation is untenable. What is clear instead is that Villareal
was constructively dismissed. Additionally, the immediate filing of an illegal d
ismissal complaint serves to further negate the alleged voluntariness of resigna
tion.