G.R. No. 212003 . February 28, 2018.
PHILIPPINE SPAN ASIA CARRIERS CORPORATION (FORMERLY SULPICIO LINES, INC.), Petitioner, vs. HEIDI PELAYO, Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Heidi Pelayo was employed as an accounting clerk at petitioner’s Davao City branch. Her duties included preparing vouchers and checks for approval by the branch manager and cashier. Petitioner uncovered several financial anomalies at the Davao branch, including an altered check and apparent double disbursements. As the employee who prepared the pertinent vouchers and checks, Pelayo was interviewed by a management team in Davao from March 3 to 5, 2010. A follow-up investigation was required, and Pelayo was asked to report to the main office in Cebu on March 8, 2010, with all expenses paid by the company. During a panel interview in Cebu, Pelayo walked out, later claiming she was being coerced to admit complicity. She returned to Davao, was hospitalized, and eventually stopped reporting for work. Petitioner subsequently served a memorandum placing her on a 30-day preventive suspension and requiring her written explanation regarding the anomalies. Instead of complying, Pelayo filed a complaint for constructive dismissal.

ISSUE

Whether or not the acts of the employer, in requiring Pelayo to participate in an investigation regarding financial anomalies, constituted constructive dismissal.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that there was no constructive dismissal. The legal logic is anchored on the principle that not every inconvenience or difficulty endured by an employee during an investigation sustains a finding of constructive dismissal. It is a management prerogative, indeed a responsibility, to investigate acts of wrongdoing within the company to protect its business interests. The Court found that the employer’s actions were a valid exercise of this right. Requiring Pelayo to report to the main office for a follow-up interview, given her direct role in preparing the questioned documents, was reasonable and necessary for a thorough investigation. The subsequent preventive suspension and memorandum were standard procedural steps following her non-cooperation and walkout, not acts of harassment. The employer’s actions did not make continued employment impossible, unreasonable, or unlikely. A reasonable person in Pelayo’s position would not have felt compelled to resign under these circumstances, as the employer was merely investigating serious anomalies. Her unilateral decision to abandon her work, despite the ongoing investigation and the opportunity to explain her side, constituted abandonment, not constructive dismissal. The Labor Arbiter and the Court of Appeals erred in concluding otherwise. The National Labor Relations Commission’s decision, which found no constructive dismissal, was reinstated.