Scribd
Upload
155 views2 pages

Paredes

This case involves a petition filed by Rosalinda Paredes against Feed the Children Philippines regarding her resignation and claims for unpaid debt and reimbursement of retirement funds. The Court of Appeals ruled that Paredes was not constructively dismissed but awarded damages. The Supreme Court partly granted the petition, affirming Paredes was not constructively dismissed and setting aside the damage awards, finding they did not arise from an employer-employee relationship. The Court found Paredes failed to prove her resignation was involuntary and the circumstances did not constitute constructive dismissal.

Uploaded by

emen pena
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
155 views2 pages

Paredes

This case involves a petition filed by Rosalinda Paredes against Feed the Children Philippines regarding her resignation and claims for unpaid debt and reimbursement of retirement funds. The Court of Appeals ruled that Paredes was not constructively dismissed but awarded damages. The Supreme Court partly granted the petition, affirming Paredes was not constructively dismissed and setting aside the damage awards, finding they did not arise from an employer-employee relationship. The Court found Paredes failed to prove her resignation was involuntary and the circumstances did not constitute constructive dismissal.

Uploaded by

emen pena
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

I.

CLEMENTE A, PENA
Block 2A 11-23724
II. ROSALINDA G. PAREDES vs FEED THE CHILDREN PHILIPPINES, INC.
AND/OR DR. VIRGINIA LAO, HERCULES PARADIANG AND BENJAMIN
ESCOBIA
G.R. No. 184397,
September 09, 2015
III. Statement of the issue/s: Whether or not the CA effectively reverses the law and
jurisprudence on damages and recognized money claims in labor cases when it
condemned petitioner to pay respondents' claims for damages that were not duly
proven by the latter and that clearly did not arise from an employer-employee
relationship.
IV. Complainant’s argument/s
V. Respondent’s argument/s:
VI. Decision of the Court: the petition for review on certiorari, dated October 23, 2008,
of petitioner Rosalinda G. Paredes is hereby PARTLY GRANTED. Accordingly, the
ruling of the Court of Appeals in its Decision dated March 25, 2008, that petitioner
was not constructively dismissed, is hereby AFFIRMED. However, the awards of
P34,438.37 and Pl09,208.36 for the unpaid debt of petitioner and reimbursement of
the FTCP Provident Fund, respectively, are hereby SET ASIDE.
VII. Ratio: Judicial review of labor cases does not go beyond the evaluation of the
sufficiency of the evidence upon which its labor officials' findings rest. As such, the
findings of facts and conclusion of the NLRC are generally accorded not only great
weight and respect but even clothed with finality and deemed binding on this Court as
long as they are supported by substantial evidence.
After judicious review on the records of the case, this Court deems it proper to
disregard the findings of fact of the NLRC. This Court finds that the NLRC
committed grave abuse of discretion when it ruled for the petitioner without
substantial evidence to support its findings of facts and conclusion.
Since petitioner admittedly resigned, it is incumbent upon her to prove that her
resignation was involuntary and that it was actually a case of constructive dismissal
with clear, positive and convincing evidence. Case law holds that constructive
dismissal occurs when there is cessation of work because continued employment is
rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely; when there is a demotion in rank or
diminution in pay or both; or when a clear discrimination, insensibility, or disdain by
an employer becomes unbearable to the employee. The test is whether a reasonable
person in the employee's position would have felt compelled to give up his position
under the circumstances. In this case, petitioner cannot be deemed constructively
dismissed. She failed to present clear and positive evidence that respondent FTCP,
through its Board of Trustees, committed acts of discrimination, insensibility, or
disdain towards her which rendered her continued employment unbearable or forced
her to terminate her employment from the respondent. As settled, bare allegations of
constructive dismissal, when uncorroborated by the evidence on record, cannot be
given credence. There was no urgency for petitioner to submit her resignation letter.
In fact, the day before it was given, she and other management staff requested for a
dialogue with the Board to address the issue regarding the management and financial
audit. It is, therefore, improbable that her continued employment is rendered
impossible or unreasonable.
We are not persuaded that her exclusion to the meeting constituted discrimination or
harassment. A careful perusal of the minutes would reveal that the Board convened to
deliberate on the solution to the apparent conflict between petitioner and the staff
since they have insufficient grievance mechanism for issues involving top
management. She could not fault the Board to not include her in that particular
meeting since she was a party involved and to avoid possible influence that she could
have exerted. We held that the act of the employer moving the effectivity of the
resignation is not an act of harassment. The 30-day notice requirement for an
employee’s resignation is actually for the benefit of the employer who has the
discretion to waive such period. Its purpose is to afford the employer enough time to
hire another employee if needed and to see to it that there is proper turn-over of the
tasks which the resigning employee may be handling. Such rule requiring an
employee to stay or complete the 30-day period prior to the effectivity of his
resignation becomes discretionary on the part of management as an employee who
intends to resign may be allowed a shorter period before his resignation becomes
effective. Applying the rule of noscitur a sociis in clarifying the scope of Article 217,
it is evident that paragraphs 1 to 5 refer to cases or disputes arising out of or in
connection with an employer-employee relationship. In other words, the money
claims within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of labor arbiters are those which
have some reasonable causal connection with the employer-employee relationship.
This claim is distinguished from cases of actions for damages where the employer-
employee relationship is merely incidental and the cause of action proceeds from a
different source of obligation. Thus, the regular courts have jurisdiction where the
damages claimed for were based on: tort, malicious prosecution, or breach of
contract, as when the claimant seeks to recover a debt from a former employee or
seeks liquidated damages in the enforcement of a prior employment contract.
It is settled that the law serves to equalize the unequal. The labor force is a special
class that is constitutionally protected because of the inequality between capital and
labor. This constitutional protection presupposes that the labor force is weak.
However, the level of protection to labor should vary from case to case; otherwise,
the state might appear to be too paternalistic in affording protection to labor.

You might also like