G.R. No. 180285; July 6, 2010
MA. SOCORRO MANDAPAT, petitioner, vs. ADD FORCE PERSONNEL SERVICES, INC. and COURT OF APPEALS, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Ma. Socorro Mandapat was hired as Sales and Marketing Manager by respondent Add Force Personnel Services, Inc. on September 15, 2003. After five months, respondent issued a show-cause memorandum on February 23, 2004, detailing petitioner’s alleged infractions, including failure to close any contract, submitting proposals disadvantageous to the company, sending erroneous communications, and habitual failure to submit required reports. The memorandum charged her with gross neglect and willful breach of trust, placed her on preventive suspension, and directed her to turn over tasks and leave the premises.
In response, petitioner submitted a letter explaining her side and tendered her resignation dated February 25, 2004, which she claimed was in protest of the allegedly illegal preventive suspension. She subsequently filed a complaint for constructive dismissal, arguing the suspension was baseless and that she was pressured to resign. The Labor Arbiter and the NLRC ruled in her favor, finding constructive dismissal. The Court of Appeals reversed these rulings.

ISSUE

Whether or not petitioner was constructively dismissed, or whether she voluntarily resigned from her employment.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision, ruling that petitioner was not constructively dismissed but voluntarily resigned. The legal logic hinges on the definition of constructive dismissal, which requires a clear, intentional, and involuntary act by the employer making continued employment impossible, unreasonable, or unlikely, leaving the employee with no choice but to resign. The Court found no such act by the employer.
The issuance of the show-cause memorandum and the imposition of preventive suspension were legitimate management prerogatives in light of the serious charges against petitioner, who held a sensitive managerial position involving trust. The option given to her—to resign or face investigation—did not constitute coercion or duress. For resignation under pressure to be considered involuntary, it must be proven that the employer used force, coercion, or intimidation leaving the employee with no viable alternative. The Court found that the employer’s actions were a lawful exercise of its right to investigate alleged infractions. The final decision to resign remained with petitioner, and her act of tendering resignation was deemed voluntary. Consequently, her claim of constructive dismissal failed.