IN July 1988, petitioner Central Azucarera De Bais, Inc. (CABI) hired respondent Janet T. Siason as a purchasing assistant and eventually, promoted to the position of purchasing officer. In Oct. 3, 2011, petitioner Antonio Steven L. Chan confronted her on the propriety of the delivery of a machine part via air freight in lieu of a previously approved sea freight. CABI also alleged that the purchases made by Siason were audited and irregularities were discovered in the procurement of several supplies. Later that day, Siason received a letter signed by Chan advising her to tender her immediate resignation instead of facing an administrative investigation. In Oct. 4, 2011, she received another letter, this time from CABI’s legal officer, Atty. Suzette A. Ner-Tiangco, following up her action regarding Chan’s letter. Consequently, Siason wrote a resignation letter. In Nov. 14, 2014, she filed the instant complaint against petitioners alleging that Chan forced her to resign.
In their defense, petitioners claimed that Siason was not constructively dismissed since she voluntarily resigned from CABI. Is there merit to this defense?
Ruling: Yes.
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 Oct. 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 Oct. 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 petitioners 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, petitioners 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 petitioners providing for such. (Perlas-Bernabe, J.; SC First Division, Central Azucarera De Bais, Inc. and Antonio Steven L. Chan vs. Janet T. Siason, G.R. No. 215555, July 29, 2015).