ON Oct. 27, 2006, respondent Sitel Philippines Corp. (Sitel) hired petitioner Arvin A. Pascual as agent. In 2014 Sitel promoted him to the Comcast Customer Service Group (Comcast CSG) account as coach/supervisor.
On Oct. 9, 2014, a notice to explain was served upon him for his failure to take the necessary action in the case of an agent who has been inactive since May 2014. On Nov. 21, 2014, he was served a notice of decision suspending him for five days from Nov. 26 to 30, 2014. On Dec. 2, 2014, another notice to explain was served upon him requiring him to explain of his absences without permission.
Petitioner alleged that P6,896.58 was withheld from his salary. When his request for clarification was unheard, he was prompted to send an e-mail manifesting his intention to resign, to recover his unpaid salary and the issuance of a certificate of employment. This was not again given any attention. On Dec. 11, 2014 he brought a copy of his letter of resignation to respondent Amor Reyes. Later, he found out that P7,842.11 was further withheld from his salary. Thus, he filed a complaint for constructive dismissal against respondents.
Does this complaint prosper?
Ruling: No.
Petitioner’s resignation was voluntary and Sitel is not guilty of constructive dismissal.
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., G.R. 191460 & 191464, Jan. 31, 2018, 853 SCRA 446, 449, 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, G.R. 206316, March 20, 2019, 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 Diosdado Jayson Remion’s case, petitioner conspicuously failed to do so. He consistently evaded the issue and did not attend the hearing on the matter.
The Court agrees with the Labor Arbiter that petitioner’s claim of dismissal was also negated by the fact that he was simply suspended for five days, albeit the charges against him merit his dismissal. Verily, Sitel was attentive and considerate with petitioner’s situation. It was petitioner who misinterpreted Sitel’s decision. (Arvin A. Pascual vs. Sitel Philippines Corp. et al., G.R. 240484, March 9, 2020).