GIRLY G. ICO vs. SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY INSTITUTE, INC. MONICO V.

JACOB
and PETER K. FERNANDEZ,
G.R. No. 185100; July 9, 2014; DEL CASTILLO, J.

FACTS:

Systems Technology Institute, Inc. (STI) is an educational institution incorporated,

organized, and existing under Philippine laws. Monico V. Jacob is the President and CEO and
Peter K. Fernandez is the Senior Vice-President.

Girly G. Ico was hired as Faculty Member by STI College Makati. Afterwards, she was
promoted to Chief Operating Officer of STI-Makati, concurrently serving as its School
Administrator. A plan of merger was then executed between STI and STI College Makati. She was
reappointed as the COO of STI-Makati under Fernandez but two months after the confirmation of
her appointment, she was reassigned as a Compliance Manager. According to STI, the
organizational restructuring was undertaken in order to streamline the operations and in the
process, it abolished the positions of CEO and COO.

Prior to her reassignment as compliance manager, she was accused by Fernandez to have
committed several violations which the latter refused to specify or put into writing. Thereafter, Ico
has been discriminated against. She has been left alone in the office while everyone went to Baguio
for a planning session and on that same day, there was an announcement via email informing
everyone of Jacob’s appointment as President and CEO, Fernandez’s appointment as the new COO
of STI-Makati and Victoria Luz as the new STI-Makati School Administrator. There was no
announcement as to her appointment as Compliance Manager.

Pursuant to Fernandez’s allegations, an audit report was made accusing Ico of several
violations. This led the former to recommend the latter’s preventive suspension which Jacob
approved. Then, Ico received another memo stating that charges have been filed against her based
on the audit findings. However, she was not informed of the particular charges and results of the
audit nor was she furnished a copy thereof. When she filed a labor case, her suspension was lifted
and she was ordered to return to work. Subsequently, Ico was invited to a meeting to discuss the
charges against her but she was not given a copy of the complaint. Thereafter, she went on
sanctioned leave of absence and after the lapse of her approved leave, no longer returned to work.
STI then issued a memo withholding her incentives pending the investigation. Thereafter, she was
dismissed.

The labor arbiter found that Ico has been constructively dismissed but it was set aside by
the NLRC which the CA confirmed.

ISSUE: Whether or not Girly Ico was constructively dismissed?

HELD:

Yes. It appears that the position of STI-Makati COO was actually never abolished. As a
matter of fact, soon after petitioner was removed from the position, Fernandez was appointed to
take her place as STI-Makati COO; his appointment was even publicly announced via an official
communication disseminated company-wide. This thus belies respondents’ claim that the position
of STI-Makati COO became unnecessary and was thus abolished.

Ico’s appointment as Compliance Manager appears to be contrived as well. At the time of

her appointment, the only two Compliance Manager positions were already filled up by Musico
and Gozum. None of them has been dismissed or resigned. Nor could petitioner have been
appointed head of the department, as Paraiso was its Compliance Group Head. The only positions
within the department that were at the time vacant were those of Compliance Officers, which are
of lower rank. In other words, petitioner could not have been validly appointed as Compliance
Manager, a position within STI that was then very much occupied; if ever, petitioner took the
position of a mere Compliance Officer, the only vacant position within the department.

The Court’s findings that the position of STI-Makati COO was never abolished and that
petitioner’s appointment as Compliance Manager was contrived, confirms the view that petitioner
was not transferred to the School Compliance Group as a matter of necessity, but as punishment
for her perceived irregularities. In effect, petitioner was demoted and relegated to a position of
insignificance within STI, there to suffer for what her employer alleged were transgressions
committed by her. To all intents and purposes, petitioner was punished even before she could be
tried. Petitioner could not be faulted for taking an indefinite leave of absence, and for altogether
failing to report for work after August 9, 2004. Human nature dictates that petitioner should refuse
to subject herself to further embarrassment and indignities from the respondents and her
colleagues. All told, petitioner was deemed constructively dismissed as of May 18, 2004.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED.