G.R. No. 185269 ; June 29, 2010
ELSA S. MALIG-ON, Petitioner, vs. EQUITABLE GENERAL SERVICES, INC., Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Elsa Malig-on was hired by respondent Equitable General Services, Inc. as a janitress in 1996. On February 15, 2002, her supervisor informed her she would be reassigned to another client, but no new assignment materialized despite her follow-ups. Eight months later, on October 15, 2002, the company told her to submit a resignation letter as a prerequisite for reassignment. She complied, but the company did not provide a new assignment, prompting her to file a complaint for illegal dismissal. The company countered that Malig-on had abandoned her work on February 16, 2002, and that her subsequent resignation was voluntary.
The Labor Arbiter upheld the validity of the resignation. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed, finding constructive dismissal. The Court of Appeals reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s decision, leading to this petition.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that Malig-on abandoned her work and voluntarily resigned, instead of being constructively dismissed by the company.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the NLRC decision with modification, finding constructive dismissal. The legal logic centers on the burden of proof in termination cases and the analysis of resignation’s voluntariness. The employer bears the burden to prove a just cause for dismissal or that a resignation was voluntary. The circumstances surrounding Malig-on’s resignation letter did not indicate a free and willing intent to sever employment.
First, the company’s claim of abandonment was negated by its own inaction; it failed to immediately investigate her absence as required. Second, her act of submitting a resignation after eight months of being on “floating status” was inconsistent with genuine abandonment, which implies a complete disinterest in returning to work. It aligned instead with her claim that it was a condition for reassignment. Third, her filing of an illegal dismissal complaint merely three days after resigning strongly indicated the resignation was not voluntary but a product of the company’s unfulfilled promise.
The Court ruled that placing an employee on floating status for over six months constitutes constructive dismissal. Malig-on was constructively dismissed as of August 2002; thus, her October 2002 resignation was legally ineffectual. The company’s subsequent notices to her were issued after this constructive dismissal. She was awarded backwages from August 2002 until the NLRC’s reinstatement order in February 2005, and separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, with legal interest.