Laws & Jurisprudence
What Constitutes Constructive Dismissal
8:40 PM
Assailed in this Petition for Review is the Decision of the
Court of Appeals declaring respondent Rosalinda M. Torres constructively
dismissed and awarding her separation pay.
Petitioner Chiang Kai Shek College is a private educational
institution. Individual petitioner Carmelita Espino is the Vice-President of
the school. Respondent Rosalinda Torres had been employed as a grade school
teacher of the school. Respondent was accused of leaking a copy of a special
quiz given to Grade 5 students of HEKASI. Petitioners came to know about the
leakage from one of the teachers of HEKASI 5, Aileen Benabese (Ms. Benabese).
Ms. Benabese narrated that after giving a special quiz, she borrowed the book
of one of her students, Aileen Regine M. Anduyan (Aileen), for the purpose of
making an answer key. When she opened Aileen’s book, a piece of paper fell.
Said paper turned out to be a copy of the same quiz she had just given and the
same already contained answers.
Ms. Benabese informed the school’s Assistant Supervisor Mrs.
Gloria Caneda (Mrs. Caneda) about the incident. Mrs. Caneda conferred with
Assistant Supervisor Encarnacion Koo (Mrs. Koo), who was in charge of the
HEKASI area, and Supervisor Luningning Tibi (Ms. Tibi). Mrs. Koo confronted
respondent, who had initially denied leaking the test paper but later on
admitted that she gave the test paper to Mrs. Teresita Anduyan (Mrs. Anduyan),
her co-teacher and the mother of Aileen. Respondent and Mrs. Anduyan were both
directed to submit their written statement on the incident.
Respondent submitted her Comment. She insisted that Mrs. Anduyan
asked her to see the special quiz. She was not aware that Mrs. Anduyan did not
return the copy of the special quiz back to her. The Investigating Committee
held a meeting and found respondent and Mrs. Anduyan guilty of committing a
grave offense of the school policies by leaking a special quiz. According to
petitioners, their Investigating Committee had actually decided to terminate
respondent and had in fact prepared a memorandum of termination, but in
a short letter respondent allegedly pleaded for a change of punishment from
termination to suspension and that she will be resigning at the end of the
school year.
Respondent filed a complaint for constructive dismissal and
illegal suspension with the Labor Arbiter. She also sought payment of unpaid
salary, backwages, holiday pay, service incentive leave pay, 13th month pay,
separation pay, retirement benefits, damages and attorney’s fees.
In her Position Paper, respondent alleged that she was forced
and pressured to submit the written request for a change of penalty and
commitment to resign at the end of the school year. She was threatened by the
school management with immediate dismissal from service if she did not submit
the written statement. She claimed that she was not formally charged with any
offense and she was not served a copy of the notice of the school’s decision to
terminate her services.
The Labor Arbiter Eduardo J. Carpio dismissed respondent’s
complaint for lack of merit. The Labor Arbiter deemed respondent’s suspension
coupled with petitioner’s allowance of respondent’s resignation at the end of
the school year as generous acts considering the offense committed. The Labor
Arbiter held that there was no constructive dismissal because respondent was
not coerced nor pressured to write her resignation letter.
On appeal, the Second Division of the NLRC rendered a
Decision affirming the Labor Arbiter’s findings but ordering petitioners
to pay respondent separation pay equivalent to one-half (1/2) month salary for
every year of service on the grounds of equity and social justice.
Respondent elevated the case to the Court of Appeals. The Court
of Appeals reversed the NLRC Decision and ruled that petitioner did not
voluntarily resign but was constructively dismissed. Petitioners moved for
reconsideration but it was denied. Hence, this petition for review.
ISSUE:
Was respondent Rosalinda Torres constructively dismissed?
Ruling:
The school’s act of imposing the penalty of suspension instead
of immediate dismissal from service at the behest of the erring employee, in
exchange for the employee’s resignation at the end of the school year did NOT constitutes constructive dismissal.
Resignation is the voluntary act of an employee who is in a situation where one
believes that personal reasons cannot be sacrificed for the favor of
employment, and opts to leave rather than stay employed. It is a formal
pronouncement or relinquishment of an office, with the intention of
relinquishing the office accompanied by the act of relinquishment. As the
intent to relinquish must concur with the overt act of relinquishment, the acts
of the employee before and after the alleged resignation must be considered in
determining whether, he or she, in fact, intended to sever his or her
employment.
We do not find anything irregular with respondent’s handwritten
letter. The letter came about because respondent was faced with an imminent
dismissal and opted for an honorable severance from employment. That respondent
voluntarily resigned is a logical conclusion. Respondent’s infraction and the
inevitable and justifiable consequence of that infraction, i.e., termination of
employment, induced her to resign or promise to resign by the end of the
shchool year.
Given the indications of voluntary resignation, we rule that
there is no constructive dismissal in this case. There is constructive
dismissal when there is cessation of work, because continued employment is
rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely, as an offer involving a demotion
in rank or a diminution in pay and other benefits. Aptly called a dismissal in
disguise or an act amounting to dismissal but made to appear as if it were not,
constructive dismissal may, likewise, exist if an act of clear discrimination,
insensibility, or disdain by an employer becomes so unbearable on the part of
the employee that it could foreclose any choice by him except to forego his
continued employment. There
was here no discrimination committed by petitioners. While respondent did not
tender her resignation wholeheartedly, circumstances of her own making did not
give her any other option. With due process, she was found to have committed
the grave offense of leaking test questions. Dismissal from employment was the
justified equivalent penalty. Having realized that, she asked for, and was
granted, not just a deferred imposition of, but also an acceptable cover for
the penalty.
G.R. No. 189456, April 2, 2014
CHIANG KAI SHEK COLLEGE and CARMELITA ESPINO, Petitioners, vs. ROSALINDA
M. TORRES, Respondent.
PEREZ, J.:
The author takes no responsibility for the validity, correctness and result of this work. The information provided is not a legal advice and it should not be used as a substitute for a competent legal advice from a licensed lawyer. See the disclaimer
0 comments