Popular cosmetic surgeon Vicki Belo lost an appeal to reverse a decision of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) that partly blamed her husband, Dr. Hayden Kho’s alleged meddling into the job of her firm’s marketing manager as an act constituting constructive dismissal of the affected employee.

In a 35-page decision released recently, the Court of Appeals’ Fourth Division junked the Petition for Certiorari filed by Belo and Agnes Lopez, Belo Medical Group chief executive officer and general manager, respectively, that assailed the NLRC decision against them.

In a 2020 decision, the NLRC supported Labor Arbiter Ludovina L. Ubiña-Taguinod’s ruling that upheld the complaint filed by Marie Angelie B. Macatual of constructive dismissal against Belo and Lopez.

In her ruling, Ubiña-Taguinod said Macatual should be reinstated as BMG’s marketing manager and be paid back wages computed from the time she was “constructively dismissed up to the promulgation” of the decision.

However, since the relationship between Macatual and her former employers have already been “strained”, the labor arbiter ruled that she is entitled to separation pay equivalent to one month for every year of service to
Belo’s company.

In her complaint, Macatual accused Belo of turning her into a “guinea pig” when Belo tested a new machine on her arms. She claimed to have experienced pain for several weeks as there was a lapse in the procedure that required liposuction surgery performed by Belo herself.

She further accused Belo of assigning Kho as director for marketing management notwithstanding the fact that there was no such position in the BMG structure. She said Kho usurped her job as marketing manager of BMG.

Thus, Macatual was blamed for marketing and advertising decisions made by Kho that did not sit well with Belo.

Kho, according to Macatual, also gave “conflicting instructions” to her and her team.

To further force her out of the company, Lopez allegedly initiated an investigation into Macatual’s absence during a company summer outing and her “availment of BMG’s free treatment” without prior approval from the management.

She blamed Kho’s meddling and her “de facto” demotion as among the reasons that forced her to leave the company on June 17, 2019.

In seeking a reversal of the NLRC ruling, petitioners Belo and Lopez said complaints from Macatual’s team members have been filed against her. They accused her of dishonesty for availing of free treatments without prior approval.

In response to accusation that she subjected Macatual as a “guinea pig”, Belo said that she “voluntarily consented to the procedure.”

According to Belo the issue which is work-related injury is beyond the NLRC’s scope of jurisdiciton.

Belo argued that Kho, being her husband, has prerogative to act the way he did because he is “considered to have conjugal ownership over BMG.”

In the decision written by Associate Justice Eduardo Ramos, the CA Fourth Division upheld the NLRC ruling that Macatual was indeed pressured to resign.

“After a careful examination of the records, this Court agrees with the NLRC that her unbearable condition and the hostile environment left her with no choice but to resign,” the court ruled.

“As correctly found by the labor tribunals, the charges against Macatual were merely lumped together and were either baseless or trivial,” the appellate court said.

“Free treatments availed by Macatual cannot constitute grave abuse of authority. There was no intimidation on BMG aestheticians and staff from Macatual to avail of free treatment and thus defraud BMG,” the three-man panel ruled.

The appellate court added: “In fine, contrary to petitioners claim, we find that the NLRC thoroughly examined and evaluated the records and evidence presented by the two parties. Thus, We rule that the NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion.”