The NLRC also ruled that there was constructive dismissal since working
under said conditions was unbearable.[23]
As we have held previously, constructive dismissal covers the involuntary
resignation resorted to when continued employment becomes impossible,
unreasonable or unlikely; when there is a demotion in rank or a diminution in pay;
or when a clear discrimination, insensibility or disdain by an employer becomes
unbearable to an employee.[24]
In this case, the appellate court found that petitioners did not deny that the
accommodations were not as homely as expected. In the petitioners’ memorandum,
they admitted that they were told by the principal, upon their arrival, that the
dormitory was still under construction and were requested to bear with the
temporary inconvenience and the dormitory would soon be finished. We likewise
note that petitioners did not refute private respondents’ assertion that they had
deployed approximately sixty other workers to their principal, and to the best of
their knowledge, no other worker assigned to the same principal has resigned,
much less, filed a case for illegal dismissal.[25]
To our mind these cited circumstances do not reflect malice by private
respondents nor do they show the principal’s intention to subject petitioners to
unhealthy accommodations. Under these facts, we cannot rule that there was
constructive dismissal.
Private respondents also claim that petitioners were not entitled to overtime
pay, since they had offered no proof that they actually rendered overtime
work. Petitioners, on the other hand, say that they could not show any
documentary proof since their employment records were all in the custody of the
principal employer. It was sufficient, they claim, that they alleged the same with
particularity.
On this matter, we rule for the petitioners. The claim for overtime pay
should not have been disallowed because of the failure of the petitioners to
substantiate them.[26] The claim of overseas workers against foreign employers
could not be subjected to same rules of evidence and procedure easily obtained by
complainants whose employers are locally based.[27] While normally we would