Pascual v. Sitel Philippines Corporation (2020)

Pascual v. Sitel Philippines Corporation, G.R. No. 240484, March 9, 2020, Per Inting, J.:

1. Background

• On October 27, 2006, Sitel hired petitioner as agent. In 2014, Sitel promoted him to the Comcast Customer Service Group (Comcast CSG) account as coach/supervisor with a monthly salary of P25,000.00.

• Subsequently, Sitel served a notice to explain dated October 9, 2014 upon him for his failure to take the necessary action on the case of Diosdado Jayson Remion (Remion), an agent in Comcast CSG who has been inactive since May 2014. Sitel then served a second notice to explain upon him charging him with: (a) gross and habitual neglect of duties; (b) other analogous causes; and (c) acts of gross negligence or intentional acts of damage resulting in personal injury or damage to property of the company or third persons, or otherwise causing expenses to be incurred by the company.

• In his Reply, petitioner requested that the charges against him be “particularized” to enable him to raise proper defenses.

• On November 4, 2014, respondents specified the acts committed by Remion and reiterated petitioner’s failure to take action on Remion’s case which resulted in Sitel’s losses. Correspondingly, Sitel revised the charges against petitioner from gross and habitual neglect to serious misconduct or willful disobedience of employer’s orders. An administrative hearing was set on November 10, 2014, but petitioner failed to attend due to the alleged lack of details concerning the charges. Petitioner tried to submit his reply to the third notice to explain, but the guard refused to stamp “received” as the latter was supposedly instructed to accept any document from him, but not to acknowledge its receipt. Unstirred, he sent e-mails to Argana concerning his situation.

• On November 21, 2014, Sitel served a Notice to Decision upon petitioner suspending him for five days from November 26 to 30, 2014. To his surprise, P6,896.58 was withheld from his salary. On December 2, 2014, another Notice to Explain was served upon him requiring him to explain within 24 hours his absences without permission on November 10, 13, 17, and 22 to 24, 2014. In his response, petitioner expressed his physical, emotional, and psychological predicament. He requested for clarification, but to no avail; thus, prompting him to send an e-mail to the company manifesting his intention to resign, recover his unpaid salary, and the issuance of a certificate of employment. As what happened in the past, his manifestation was not given any proper attention.

• Petitioner personally met Reyes on December 11, 2014 and brought a copy of his letter of resignation which he previously sent to Lee. He asked Reyes to read and acknowledge its receipt, but she refused. The next day, he found out that an amount of P7,842.11 was further withheld from his salary for the period covering November 21 to December 5, 2014. Thus, he pursued his claim for constructive dismissal asserting that: (a) he was pushed to a situation where the oppressive and demeaning acts/omissions of respondents created an adverse working environment rendering it impossible for him to continue with his employment with Sitel; (b) his severance from employment was not voluntary, but was a result of forced resignation arising from harassment, humiliation, and the unlawful withholding of his salaries; (c) he was intentionally coerced into giving up his job; and (d) he was unjustly suspended after respondents ignored his pleas for a bill of particulars and the unjust withholding of his salaries.

2. SC Decision / Resolution

• Constructive dismissal is defined as quitting or cessation of work because continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely; when there is a demotion in rank or a diminution of pay and other benefits. It exists 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. There is in voluntary resignation due to the harsh, hostile, and unfavorable conditions set by the employer. The test of constructive dismissal is whether a reasonable person in the employee’s position would have felt compelled to give up his employment/position under the circumstances.

• Resignation, on the other hand, is the voluntary act of an employee who is in a situation where one believes that personal reasons cannot be sacrificed in favor of the exigency of the service, and one has no other choice but to disassociate oneself from employment. It is a formal pronouncement or relinquishment of an office, with the intention of relinquishing the office accompanied by the act of relinquishment. As the intent to relinquish must concur with the overt act of relinquishment, the acts of the employee before and after the alleged resignation must be considered in determining whether he or she, in fact, intended to sever his or her employment.

• To emphasize, the intent to relinquish must concur with the overt act of relinquishment. The acts of the employee before and after the alleged resignation must be considered in determining whether the employee concerned, 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.

• Guided by the foregoing legal precepts, a judicious review of the facts on record will show that Sitel was able to show that petitioner resigned voluntarily as shown by the following circumstances:

• First, the e-mail[39] which petitioner sent to Lee, Sitel’s COO, manifesting his intention to resign categorically and unequivocally expressed his intention to disassociate himself from the company.[40] In the same e-mail, he even asked for: (1) the payment of his salaries, and (2) the issuance of his certificate of employment.

• Petitioner wrote:

This is the most painful decision so far that I have ever made in my life. Farthest from the wildest of my imagination that I will ever have a rendezvous with a very dark chapter of a person’s professional career – BEING LEFT WTH NO OTHER CHOICE BUT TO DISASSOCIATE MYSELF FROM EMPLOYMENT WITH SITEL. x x x

x x x x

Truly, I am now in a very discouraged, depressed, exhausted and dejected state emanating from the present inhumane working environment I am being made to suffer. Hence, it FORECLOSES ANY CHOICE BUT FOR ME TO FOREGO CONTINUED EMPLOYMENT WITH SITEL.

The conduct of the following persons toward me have become unbearable already. In consequence, I AM IMPELLED TO GIVE UP MY EIGHT YEARS OF EMPLOYMENT WITH SITEL:

x x x x

Now that I belong to the ranks of the Filipino unemployed by force of circumstances, I humbly request for your intervention Sir for purposes of facilitating the:

1) Payment of my salaries withheld last 28 November 2014 payroll in contravention of Articles 113 and 116 of The Labor Code of the Philippines. I trust that Ms. Phoebe Monica Argana could release these withheld monies amounting to Php 6,896.58 on or before December 12, 2014 in order that the same could be used for my medical treatment.

2) Issuance of my certificate of employment in compliance with pertinent provisions of the Rules Implementing The Labor Code of the Philippines. I trust that Ms. Argana is most familiar with this provision of law regarding the issuance of certificate of employment to someone whose cessation of employment is impelled by circumstances akin to what befell me. Trusting, that the same could also be released on or before December 12, 2014 in order that I could use it in seeking employment with another company.

• On December 11, 2014, petitioner brought a copy of his resignation letter to Sitel’s operations manager, and asked her to read it and acknowledge its receipt.

• Second, petitioner e-mailed another copy of the resignation letter to Reyes on December 12, 2014 and reiterated his resignation. After that, he sent a hard copy of the resignation letter to the company via registered mail.

• Third, petitioner went back to Sitel on December 18, 2014 with a resignation letter of even date. The following day, Sitel formally accepted his resignation.

• Since petitioner submitted his resignation letter on several occasions, it is incumbent upon him to prove with clear, positive, and convincing evidence that his resignation was not voluntary, but was actually a case of constructive dismissal or that it is a product of coercion or intimidation. He has to prove his allegations with particularity.

• In Pascua v. Bank Wise, Inc., the Court held that an unconditional and categorical letter of resignation cannot be considered indicative of constructive dismissal if it is submitted by an employee fully aware of its effects and implications.

• Similarly, Panasonic v. Peckson, teaches that the Court does not sustain findings of fraud upon circumstances which, at most, create only suspicion; otherwise, it would be indulging in speculations and surmises. Petitioner failed to show any substantial evidence that he was treated unfairly and, thus, he was forced to resign. He failed to show any tangible acts of harassment, insults, and any abuse that would warrant a possible finding of constructive dismissal.

• Here, contrary to petitioner’s assertions, Sitel aptly established that petitioner’s e-mails and resignation letter showed the voluntariness of his separation from the company. While the fact of filing a resignation letter alone does not shift the burden of proof, it is still incumbent upon the employer to prove that the employee voluntarily resigned. In petitioner’s case, the facts show that the resignation letter is grounded in petitioner’s desire to leave the company as opposed to any deceitful machination or coercion on the part of Sitel. His subsequent and contemporaneous actions belie the claim that petitioner was subjected to harassment by Sitel. Interestingly, even when given the opportunity to explain his side regarding the Remion’s case, petitioner conspicuously failed to do so. He consistently evaded the issue and did not attend the hearing on the matter. Petitioner’s letter dated December 3, 2014 to Reyes reads in part:

Why can we not sweep out of the rug the fact that we had a communication supported by electronic evidence x x x last 22 November that the reason why I was not able to report for work is because my ego was totally deflated after you brought me into a hot pit on the wee hour of morning on 21 November 2014 without the slightest of warning? Electronic evidence will further prove that I explained to you that I could not muster the emotional strength to be in the same workplace where my reputation was vilified.

• Petitioner could not have been coerced as well. Coercion exists when there is a reasonable or well-grounded fear of an imminent evil upon a person or his property or upon the person or property of his spouse, descendants or ascendants. Neither petitioner’s narration of facts prove that he was intimidated. In one case, the Court enumerated the requisites for intimidation to vitiate one’s consent, including: (1) that the intimidation caused the consent to be given; (2) that the threatened act be unjust or unlawful; (3) that the threat be real or serious, there being evident disproportion between the evil and the resistance which all men can offer, leading to the choice of doing the act which is forced on the person to do as the lesser evil; and (4) that it produces a well-grounded fear from the fact that the person from whom it comes has the necessary means or ability to inflict the threatened injury to his person or property.

• Moreover, the alleged instances of badgering or harassment perpetrated by Sitel’s representatives, namely: Sukumar, Reyes, and Argana are more apparent than real. Aside from the need to treat these accusations with caution for being self-serving due to lack of substantial documentary or testimonial evidence, the Court is not convinced that the purported “series of events,” which compelled him to resign, even if true, are tantamount to constructive dismissal.