GR 175988; (August, 2007) (Digest)
G.R. No. 175988; August 24, 2007
MA. FININA E. VICENTE, Petitioner, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS and CINDERELLA MARKETING CORPORATION, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Ma. Finina E. Vicente was employed by respondent Cinderella Marketing Corporation, eventually becoming its Consignment Operations Manager. An investigation was initiated into irregular and fraudulent encashments of corporate checks, with initial findings suggesting petitioner’s involvement. Petitioner alleged that the company’s AVP-Finance, Mr. Miguel Tecson, demanded her resignation on several occasions, culminating in a statement on February 15, 2000, telling her “MAG-RESIGN KANA AGAD KASI MAIIPIT KAMI.” Claiming this constituted force and intimidation, she tendered her resignation. Three years later, in 2003, she filed a complaint for constructive dismissal.
Respondent company denied the charge, asserting petitioner voluntarily resigned before the internal audit was completed and any formal investigation began. It presented her resignation letters and argued the long delay in filing the complaint demonstrated it was a mere afterthought. The Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) ruled in favor of petitioner, finding constructive dismissal. The Court of Appeals reversed these rulings, holding that petitioner voluntarily resigned.
ISSUE
Whether or not petitioner was constructively dismissed from her employment.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision, ruling that petitioner voluntarily resigned and was not constructively dismissed. The Court emphasized that in petitions for review on certiorari, it is not a trier of facts and generally accords finality to the factual findings of the Court of Appeals, especially when supported by substantial evidence, as in this case. The legal logic centered on the principle that constructive dismissal requires a clear showing that the resignation was involuntary, forced, or made under duress due to unbearable employer actions.
The Court found that the totality of evidence did not support a finding of constructive dismissal. Petitioner’s subsequent acts—such as attending meetings concerning the anomalous transactions and arranging for the settlement of her potential liabilities after her resignation—were inconsistent with a claim of forced severance. Furthermore, the three-year delay in filing the complaint strongly militated against her claim, as an employee who genuinely feels aggrieved would not wait an inordinate length of time to assert their rights. The burden of proving constructive dismissal rests on the employee, and petitioner failed to substantiate that her free will was vitiated by the employer’s conduct. The alleged statement by Mr. Tecson, viewed in the context of her subsequent actions and the delay, was insufficient to prove coercion that would render her resignation involuntary.