Central Azucarera de Bais v. Siason (2015)

See: Original Decision

Central Azucarera de Bais v. Siason, G.R. No. 215555, July 29, 2015, Per Perlas-Bernabe, J.:

1. Background

• Siason alleged that sometime in July 1988, [the Employers] hired her as a Purchasing Assistant, and eventually, promoted her to the position of Purchasing Officer. On October 3, 2011, Chan confronted her on the propriety of the delivery of a machine part via air freight in lieu of a previously approved sea freight. She responded by explaining to Chan that such delivery benefited the company, but the latter considered the same as a “big infraction of the rules and regulations of [CABI].” Later that day, Siason received a letter signed by Chan informing her that she had been committing various purchasing policy violations over the past 12 months which are very unfavorable to CABI, and that the management could no longer tum a blind eye on such violations; as such, she should tender her immediate resignation from CABI, “rather than [to] force [his] hand.”[10] On October 4, 2011, Siason received another letter,[11] this time from CABI’s legal officer, Atty. Suzette A. Ner-Tiangco (Atty. Ner-Tiangco), following up the former’s action regarding Chan’s letter. Consequently, Siason wrote a resignation letter, stating that she was tendering her resignation because Chan told her to do so. However, [the Employers] refused to accept the same, thus, Siason was constrained to draft another resignation letter which was acceptable to [the Employers]. On November 14, 2011, Siason filed the instant complaint against [the Employers] alleging that Chan forced her to resign as shown by his October 3, 2011 letter.

• In their defense, [the Employers] claimed that Siason was not constructively dismissed since she voluntarily resigned from CABI. They explained that CABI’s accounting department audited the purchases made by Siason and discovered irregularities in the procurement of several supplies, such as when she increased price quotations without the approval of CABI or of the supplier concerned. They then averred that in view of her long tenure in CABI and close relationship with Chan, she was given the option of resigning instead of facing an administrative investigation which would eventually result in her termination. Lastly, they asserted that Siason shredded all company documents in her possession and made unauthorized deletion of files stored in her office-issued computer in order to cover her misdeeds.

2. SC Decision / Resolution

• Resignation is the formal pronouncement or relinquishment of a position or office. It is the voluntary act of an employee who is in a situation where he believes that personal reasons cannot be sacrificed in favor of the exigency of the service, and he has then no other choice but to disassociate himself from employment. The intent to relinquish must concur with the overt act of relinquishment; hence, the acts of the employee before and after the alleged resignation must be considered in determining whether he in fact intended to terminate his employment. In illegal dismissal cases, it is a fundamental rule that when an employer interposes the defense of resignation, on him necessarily rests the burden to prove that the employee indeed voluntarily resigned.

• In contrast, constructive dismissal exists where there is cessation of work because continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely, as an offer involving a demotion in rank or a diminution in pay and other benefits. Aptly called a dismissal in disguise or an act amounting to dismissal but made to appear as if it were not, constructive dismissal may, likewise, exist if an act of clear discrimination, insensibility, or disdain by an employer becomes so unbearable on the part of the employee that it could foreclose any choice by him except to forego his continued employment. It must be noted, however, that bare allegations of constructive dismissal, when uncorroborated by the evidence on record, cannot be given credence.

• A judicious review of the records reveals that CABI’ s accounting department indeed made an audit of the purchases made by the company through its Purchasing Officer, Siason. This resulted in the discovery of a number of questionable discrepancies in several purchasing transactions undertaken by Siason, consisting in different price quotations for identical items contained in various purchase documents prepared by Siason herself. Taking into consideration Siason’s long tenure at CABI, as well as her close relationship with Chan, the latter sent her the October 3, 2011 letter asking her to resign “rather than [to] force [his] hand”- which should be construed as Chan telling Siason to resign or be faced with an administrative complaint. On October 4, 2011, Atty. Ner-Tiangco sent Siason another letter, essentially confirming if the latter was going to resign or if she is subjecting herself to an administrative investigation. Ultimately, Siason chose to tender her resignation to save herself from the trouble of besmirching her employment record.

• The foregoing facts belie Siason’s argument that [the Employers] constructively dismissed her. These circumstances show that she was given the option to voluntarily resign from CABI, instead of dealing with an investigation which might result in her dismissal. Verily, Chan’s decision to give Siason a graceful exit rather than to file an action for redress is perfectly within the discretion of the former; as it is not uncommon that an employee is permitted to resign to avoid the humiliation and embarrassment of being terminated for just cause after the exposure of her malfeasance. It is settled that there is nothing reprehensible or illegal when the employer grants the employee a chance to resign and save face rather than smear the latter’s employment record, as in this case.

• In sum, [the Employers] did not constructively dismiss Siason; but rather, the latter voluntarily resigned from her job in order to avoid a full-blown administrative trial regarding her misdeeds which could potentially result in her termination for just cause. While it may be said that she did not tender her resignation wholeheartedly, circumstances of her own making did not give her any other option but to voluntarily do so. Therefore, in view of her voluntary resignation from CABI, she is not entitled to any separation pay in the absence of any agreement with [the Employers] providing for such.