Petitioner Ma. Socorro Mandapat was hired as Sales and Marketing Manager by Respondent Add Force Personnel Services, Inc. She was suspended and investigated for failing to close any deals in her 5 months of work and submitting incorrect reports. She resigned in protest of her suspension and filed a complaint for constructive dismissal. The Court of Appeals ruled against her, finding that her preventive suspension was allowed and her resignation made the issue moot. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding no evidence that the suspension or other actions made her working conditions so intolerable as to amount to constructive dismissal based on legal standards. As her resignation was voluntary, there was no basis for her constructive dismissal claim.
Petitioner Ma. Socorro Mandapat was hired as Sales and Marketing Manager by Respondent Add Force Personnel Services, Inc. She was suspended and investigated for failing to close any deals in her 5 months of work and submitting incorrect reports. She resigned in protest of her suspension and filed a complaint for constructive dismissal. The Court of Appeals ruled against her, finding that her preventive suspension was allowed and her resignation made the issue moot. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding no evidence that the suspension or other actions made her working conditions so intolerable as to amount to constructive dismissal based on legal standards. As her resignation was voluntary, there was no basis for her constructive dismissal claim.
Petitioner Ma. Socorro Mandapat was hired as Sales and Marketing Manager by Respondent Add Force Personnel Services, Inc. She was suspended and investigated for failing to close any deals in her 5 months of work and submitting incorrect reports. She resigned in protest of her suspension and filed a complaint for constructive dismissal. The Court of Appeals ruled against her, finding that her preventive suspension was allowed and her resignation made the issue moot. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding no evidence that the suspension or other actions made her working conditions so intolerable as to amount to constructive dismissal based on legal standards. As her resignation was voluntary, there was no basis for her constructive dismissal claim.
Petitioner Ma. Socorro Mandapat was hired as Sales and Marketing Manager by Respondent Add Force Personnel Services, Inc. She was suspended and investigated for failing to close any deals in her 5 months of work and submitting incorrect reports. She resigned in protest of her suspension and filed a complaint for constructive dismissal. The Court of Appeals ruled against her, finding that her preventive suspension was allowed and her resignation made the issue moot. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding no evidence that the suspension or other actions made her working conditions so intolerable as to amount to constructive dismissal based on legal standards. As her resignation was voluntary, there was no basis for her constructive dismissal claim.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 2
MA SOCORRO MANDAPAT v. ADD FORCE PERSONNEL SERVICES INC. and CA; JULY 6, 2010; PEREZ, J.
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 respondents services.
What respondent claims she did wrong/ failed to do in her 5-month stint at work:
1. 2.
Did not close a single deal or contract with any client
Her proposals to the clients were either grossly disadvantageous to respondent or disregarded the clients budget ceiling.
3. 4.
She sent wrong data computations to client
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. 2. 3. 4. 5.
she was illegally placed on preventive suspension;
her access to the internet was cut off; she was pressured by respondent into resigning in exchange for payment of separation pay. she did not pose any danger to the lives of respondents officers, as well as its properties It was actually Longstaff, her boss, the CEO of the company whos 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 wasnt able to satisfy the money claims so the sheriff garnished its bank accounts. CA: Reversed the decision and enjoined the execution. Why? She resigned. Whats she complaining about now? The preventive suspension is also moot since she resigned. Motion for reconsideration was denied.
ISSUE: WON pet was constructively dismissed.
HELD: NO. Whats constructive dismissal? 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, whats not allowed is if it: (1) exceeds the maximum period; (2) if its indefinite
Here, it was stated in the memorandum that the duration is during the course of investigation -> thus, its logical to assume that this period wont 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 cant have access to companys 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.
[27]
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.
