GLORIA ARTIAGA VS SILIMAN UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER/ SILIMAN UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FOUNDATION, INC. 585 SCRA 552 (2009)

GLORIA ARTIAGA

VS

SILIMAN UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER/ SILIMAN UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FOUNDATION, INC.
585 SCRA 552 (2009)

Constructive dismissal does not exist when an employee furnished the employer a letter signifying his resignation.

Petitioner Gloria Artiaga was hired by respondent Siliman University Medical Center (SUMC) as Credit and Collection officer. Artiaga sent a letter to SUMC stating her wish to resign from said post. Subsequently, three years after she sent such letter, Artiaga filed a Complaint for constructive dismissal against SU, SUMC and the Foundation.

SUMC alleged that there was no constructive dismissal. It found that there were discrepancies in the transactions under Artiaga’s control and supervision. It was shown that SUMC wrote Artiaga requiring her to explain in writing why no disciplinary action should be taken against her, she was also preventively suspended for 30 days and requested to turn over all monies, files, and records within her control. Artiaga complied with SUMC’s request by giving such letter of explanation and at the same time tendered her resignation, in which SUMC accepted.

The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of legal and factual basis. On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) set aside the Labor Arbiter’s Decision, finding that Artiaga was constructively dismissed. SUMC then filed a Petition before the Court of Appeals. The CA reversed the NLRC decision and reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s decision.

ISSUES:
Whether or not Artiaga was constructively dismissed

HELD:
In reversing the Labor Arbiter’s decision, the NLRC upheld Artiaga’s version and found her to have been constructively dismissed. Artiaga presented no evidence to substantiate her claim, however.

On the other hand, SUMC’s evidence of Artiaga’s irregular acts is documented. And it sent Artiaga a Notice requiring her to explain her side and placing her under preventive suspension. Artiaga’s letter-explanation cum resignation is self-explanatory.

Against the documentary evidence of SUMC, Artiaga’s claim thus fails.

Artiaga’s claim that SMUC’s pieces of evidence were fabricated does not persuade. Artiaga’s explanation-resignation letter unquestionably shows that she received the notices referred to, otherwise, to what matters she was explaining therein?