G.R. No. 132837; June 28, 2001
JO CINEMA CORPORATION and MICHAEL JO, petitioners, vs. LOLITA C. ABELLANA and NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Jo Cinema Corporation employed private respondent Lolita Abellana as a theater porter. On November 11, 1994, the company issued a memorandum reminding all ticket sellers not to encash any check from their cash collections. On August 4, 5, 6, and 7, 1995, Abellana encashed four Banco del Norte checks amounting to P66,000.00 on behalf of her friend, using a ticket seller, Emperatriz Ynrig. The checks were dishonored for insufficiency of funds. Consequently, on August 15, 1995, Abellana was sent a show-cause memorandum, placed under preventive suspension for 20 days, and directed to attend an administrative investigation on August 26, 1995. She attended the investigation and admitted to encashing the checks without permission. On September 1, 1995, while the case was being deliberated, Abellana filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, claiming she was told to resign and pay the amount of the bounced checks and was dismissed on the day of her suspension. Petitioners denied the dismissal, arguing she was only preventively suspended and that any dismissal would be for a valid cause due to violation of a company policy. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Abellana, finding constructive dismissal and ordering payment of separation pay and full backwages totaling P115,420.79. The NLRC affirmed this decision.

ISSUE

The main issue is whether private respondent Lolita Abellana was illegally dismissed from her employment.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that private respondent was NOT illegally dismissed. The Court held that dismissal connotes a permanent severance from service, whereas Abellana was merely placed under preventive suspension, a temporary cessation from work. The Court found that she could not have been dismissed on August 15, 1995, as a formal investigation was still ongoing, which she attended on August 26, 1995. By filing her complaint on September 1, 1995, she pre-empted the outcome of the investigation. The Court also rejected the Labor Arbiter’s finding of constructive dismissal, stating that the circumstances did not show an act of clear discrimination, insensibility, or disdain by the employer that would foreclose any choice by the employee except to forego her continued employment. The Court further noted that the NLRC itself had found that at the time the complaint was filed, there was no cause of action as she was only under preventive suspension. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed and set aside the assailed NLRC decision.