Mandapat v. Add Force Personnel Services, Inc.

GR No. 180285, July 6, 2010

FACTS:
15 Sept. 2003: Pet Ma. Socorro Mandapat was hired as Sales and Marketing Manager for Resp.
Add Force Personnel Services, Inc. Her duties negotiation and consummation of contracts with
clients who wanted to avail of respondent’s services.

What respondent claims she did wrong/ failed to do in her 5-month stint at work:
1. Did not close a single deal or contract with any client
2. Her proposals to the clients were either grossly disadvantageous to respondent or
disregarded the client’s budget ceiling.
3. She sent wrong data computations to client.
4. She gave fictitious daily activity reports and reimbursement slips, failed to submit
punctually reports on daily activity, weekly sales call plan and internet-based calendar
system
These infractions were contained in a show-cause notice sent to petitioner

23 February 2004: She was given a show-cause notice directing her to explain why she should not
be disciplined for gross and habitual neglect of duties and willful breach of trust. Petitioner was
also preventively suspended and was asked to turn over pending tasks and to leave the office
premises.

She responded to this with a letter of resignation in protest of her suspension and she filed for a
complaint of constructive dismissal with the labor arbiter.

Her claims as to why she was constructively dismissed:

1. She was illegally placed on preventive suspension;
2. Her access to the internet was cut off;
3. She was pressured by respondent into resigning in exchange for payment of separation
pay;
4. She did not pose any danger to the lives of respondent’s officers, as well as its properties;
 5. It was actually Longstaff, her boss, the CEO of the company who’s at fault because even if
she performed all her duties, he was indecisive and he failed to support the staff of the sales
department
DEFENSE: She resigned. Why should she then want a reinstatement? Her preventive suspension
was apt for she posed a risk to the property and our business.
LA: She was illegally dismissed. The charges against her were not substantiated. NLRC: Affirmed
LA. It just deleted the award of moral and exemplary damages and issued a writ of execution.
Respondent wasn’t able to satisfy the money claims so the sheriff garnished its bank accounts.
CA: Reversed the decision and enjoined the execution. Why? She resigned. What’s she
complaining about now? The preventive suspension is also moot since she resigned. Motion for
reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE:
Whether or not pet was constructively dismissed.

HELD:
NO. Constructive dismissal exists when an act of clear discrimination, insensibility or disdain by
an employer has become so unbearable to the employee leaving him with no option but to forego
with his continued employment.

Petitioner reiterated that she was constructively dismissed because: (1) the pattern of
harassment (preventive suspension, disconnection of her internet account, pressure) by
respondent amounted to constructive dismissal; (2) her preventive suspension was indefinite
Respondent: A preventive suspension for 1 day is hardly indefinite because she resigned the next
day
SC: No discrimination here as to render her employment unbearable. Preventive suspension may
be legally imposed against an employee whose alleged violation is the subject of an
investigation. The purpose of his suspension is to prevent him from causing harm or injury to the
company as well as to his fellow employees. This is allowed in Section 8 and Section 9 of Rule
XXIII, Book V of IRR of the LC. Important points: It should not exceed 30 days. Thus, what’s not
allowed is if it: (1) exceeds the maximum period; (2) if it’s indefinite

Here, it was stated in the memorandum that the duration is “during the course of investigation” -
> thus, it’s logical to assume that this period won’t last 30 days. The CA is also right in saying that
this issue is already moot since she resigned anyway. Respondent only did the right thing in
meting out the suspension because petitioner can affect their business because she has the power
to enter into contracts which may endanger its assets and operations pending the investigation.
Disconnection of internet services is not harassment but just a consequence of the investigation so
she can’t have access to company’s documents. Also there was nothing illegal in giving her the
option to resign via offering a separation pay.

Thus, mere allegations of threat or force do not constitute evidence to support a finding of
forced resignation. In order for intimidation to vitiate consent, the following requisites must
concur: (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.

None of these requisites was proven by petitioner. No demand was made on petitioner to
resign. At most, she was merely given the option to either resign or face disciplinary
investigation, which respondent had every right to conduct in light of the numerous infractions
committed by petitioner. There is nothing irregular in providing an option to
petitioner. Ultimately, the final decision on whether to resign or face disciplinary action rests on
petitioner alone.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.