DIGITEL TELECOMMUNICATIONS PHILIPPINES, INC., VS MARIQUIT SORIANO

DIGITEL TELECOMMUNICATIONS PHILIPPINES, INC.,

VS

MARIQUIT SORIANO
492 SCRA 704 (2006)

Forced resignation must be sufficiently established by substantial, concrete and credible evidence.

Mariquit Soriano (Soriano) was hired as Director of Marketing by Digitel Telecommunications Philippines, Inc. (Digitel). Soriano worked under Vice President for Business Division Eric J. Severino (Severino) and Senior Executive Vice President Johnson Robert L. Go (Go). Following a professional dispute against Severino and Go, Soriano filed a resignation letter which was accepted by her superiors.

After her resignation, Soriano filed a suit for illegal termination alleging that she was forced to resign due to professional and sexual harassment. She alleged that her superiors are preventing her former colleagues in testifying to the sexual harassment. She produced an affidavit by one of the persons involved with Digitel stating that the employees of the company were being forced not to testify against Go and Severino. In defense, Go and Severino provided witnesses that testified that the acts alleged by Soriano din not happen.

The Labor Arbiter held that Mariquit voluntarily resigned, thus dismissing the complaint. On appeal, the NLRC affirmed the findings of the Labor Arbiter. The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of NLRC. Hence,this petition.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the Soriano was forced to resign, due to professional and sexual harassment, thus amounting to constructive dismissal.

HELD:
Soriano’s own allegation, although they are so detailed, appear incredible if not downright puny. An analysis of her statements shows that her own conclusion that she was being sexually and professionally harassed was on the basis of her own suppositions, conjectures, and surmises.

She could not satisfactorily explain her allegation that she was consistently professionally harassed by respondent Severino. The latter’s alleged words: “How come you claim you know so much yet nothing ever gets done in your department?” do not jurisprudentially constitute nor clearly establish “professional harassment.” Aside from these words, the complainant could only venture to allege instances in general and vague terms. As to the facts allegedly constituting “sexual harassment” advanced by Go and Severino, after an objective analysis over their assertions as stated in their respective counter-affidavits and further considering the other supporting documents attached to the respondents’ pleadings, it is found that these far out weigh the Soriano’s own evidence

A reading of the affidavit of the witness, who was never an employee nor present at the party of Digitel, reveals, however, that she merely “concluded” that the employees of Digitel were instructed or harassed not to testify in favor of Soriano when they failed to meet one Matet Ruiz, a Digitel employee “who kept avoiding to meet with such tendency to threaten resignation every time higher management would refuse her demand to transfer subordinates who had administrative differences with her, we therefore have no doubt that complainant voluntarily resigned when respondent Severino refused to heed her demand that Ms. Arnedo and Ms. Inductivo, her subordinates, be transferred to other departments. We also have no doubt that such resignation does not constitute constructive dismissal, much less an illegal one.