CONCRETE AGGREGATES CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND SOLITA B. LOPEZ, RESPONDENTS.

The sole issue in this petition is whether or not private
respondent was constructively dismissed from her employment with petitioner.

In 1979, private respondent started to work with petitioner as
probationary personnel department secretary. 
Later, she was promoted to Secretary “A” of the Administrative
Legal/Corporate Division of the petitioner. 
Sometime in 1983, the General Manager, Arleo Magtibay called a staff
meeting and accused her as one of those spreading gossip to the effect that he
has girlfriends in the office.  Since then, she felt a growing animosity of her boss towards her.

On September 19, 1985,
Magtibay informed her that the company was creating a new secretarial staffing
pattern and a special projects group designed to look into more income-generating
endeavors.  The company was then
suffering from financial reverses and it had to retrench many of its
employees.  Private respondent was
transferred to the special projects committee to conduct feasibility studies on
manpower exports.  Another employee,
Lilibeth Honrado was hired and assigned to the secretarial staff.

When private respondent learned of her new assignment, she felt
depressed and got sick.  When she
reported back to work, she did not know what to do in her new job.  Her typewriter was taken away from her.  She received an office memorandum asking her
to report for work at the old
engineering office.  Feeling that she was
being eased out, she handed a letter of resignation effective October 16,
1985.  She was given her separation pay
of one-half month pay for every year of service, 13th month pay and the salary
for October 1-15, 1985 for which she signed a quitclaim and waiver.

However, on November 26, 1985, she filed with public respondent
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) a complaint for illegal dismissal,
reimbursement of hospital expenses, moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s
fees.

In a decision dated October 30, 1987, the labor arbiter ordered
the reinstatement of private respondent to her former position with backwages
from October 16, 1985 until the date of reinstatement and that she be
reimbursed P300.00 as maternity benefit for her second childbirth by
petitioner.  Petitioner appealed to the
NLRC wherein in due course a resolution was promulgated on February 26, 1988
affirming the appealed decision with the modification that private respondent
should return to petitioner the amount she received as separation pay and that
she is not entitled to maternity benefits. 
While Presiding Commissioner Lourdes C. Javier concurred in the said
resolution, she dissented by advancing the view that constructive dismissal was
not sufficiently established.

Hence, the herein petition.

The petition is impressed with merit.

The environmental circumstances of the case show that private
respondent voluntarily resigned from employment and signed the quitclaim and
waiver after receiving all the benefits for her separation.  While it may be true that her boss Mr. Magtibay appeared to be
hostile towards her, he did not show by his acts any desire to fire her from
employment.  At that time, the company
was suffering business losses and it had to lay off 54 of its employees.  Private respondent could have been included
in the retrenchment but she was not.

Perhaps she felt misplaced when she was re-assigned to the
special projects group with a particular assignment to study manpower
exports.  Petitioner alleges that as she
had experience and training in personnel work, MBA units and connections in the
Ministry of Labor and Employment, she was considered most appropriate for this
new assignment that may open the way to expand the petitioner’s business.  On the other hand, her former position was
abolished and in a reorganization, a secretarial staff was created wherein
Honrado was appointed.

Moreover, private respondent was not the only employee who
resigned then.  There were 100 other
employees who resigned as they could see that the future of the business was
dim.  It was only private respondent who
filed a complaint against petitioner.

It is thus clear that she was not eased out much less was she
forced to resign.  This is a case of
voluntary resignation and not of a constructive dismissal.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED.  The decision of the National Labor Relations
Commission dated February 26, 1988 is hereby set aside and another decision is
hereby rendered dismissing the private respondent’s complaint.  No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, (Chairman), Cruz, Griño-Aquino, and Medialdea, JJ., concur.