G.R. No. 240484 , March 09, 2020
ARVIN A. PASCUAL, PETITIONER, V. SITEL PHILIPPINES CORPORATION, MICHAEL LEE, ASWIN SUKUMAR, PHOEBE MONICA ARGANA, REMIL CANDA AND AMOR REYES, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioner Arvin A. Pascual was hired by respondent Sitel Philippines Corporation in 2006 and was promoted to coach/supervisor in 2014. Sitel served him a notice to explain dated October 9, 2014, for his failure to take action on the case of an agent, Diosdado Jayson Remion, who had been inactive since May 2014. A second notice to explain charged him with gross neglect and other analogous causes. Petitioner requested that the charges be particularized. On November 4, 2014, respondents specified the acts and revised the charges to serious misconduct or willful disobedience. An administrative hearing was set for November 10, 2014, but petitioner failed to attend, alleging lack of details. On November 21, 2014, Sitel served a Notice of Decision suspending him for five days, and an amount was withheld from his salary. On December 2, 2014, another Notice to Explain was served for unauthorized absences. In his response, petitioner expressed his physical and emotional predicament. He subsequently sent an email manifesting his intention to resign, recover unpaid salary, and obtain a certificate of employment. He personally met respondent Amor Reyes on December 11, 2014, with a copy of his resignation letter, but she refused to acknowledge it. The next day, a further amount was withheld from his salary. Petitioner thus filed a complaint for constructive dismissal, asserting he was forced to resign due to harassment, humiliation, and unlawful withholding of salaries. Respondents contended that petitioner was instructed to act on the Remion case but failed to do so, leading to a valid suspension, and that he voluntarily resigned, as evidenced by his resignation letter accepted on December 19, 2014.
The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint, declaring the suspension legal and finding voluntary resignation. The NLRC reversed, granting the appeal and finding constructive dismissal. The Court of Appeals reversed the NLRC, dismissing the complaint and finding the resignation voluntary.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that petitioner voluntarily resigned and was not constructively dismissed.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that petitioner’s resignation was voluntary and that there was no constructive dismissal. The Court emphasized that constructive dismissal exists when an act of clear discrimination, insensibility, or disdain by an employer becomes so unbearable that the employee is forced to forego continued employment. The test is whether a reasonable person in the employee’s position would have felt compelled to give up his employment under the circumstances. In contrast, resignation is a voluntary act of relinquishment.
The Court found that petitioner’s series of acts—sending an email on December 8, 2014, manifesting his intent to resign; bringing a copy of the resignation email to Reyes on December 11; emailing a copy to Reyes on December 12; sending a hard copy via registered mail on December 15; and submitting a resignation letter dated December 18, 2014—clearly demonstrated his intention to voluntarily sever his employment. The Court noted that the alleged harsh conditions were of petitioner’s own making, as he was afforded opportunities to address the charges but refused and antagonized his employer and superiors. The withholding of salary was a consequence of his suspension, which was imposed for a valid cause. Therefore, petitioner failed to prove that his resignation was involuntary or that he was constructively dismissed.