Facts
Sutherland Global Services, Inc. (Sutherland) hired Isabelle Francesca F. Paulino (Paulino) as a Senior Training Specialist in September 2016 at their Shaw Boulevard Office. She was doing well in her job, recognized as Best Trainer for the Month of May 2017, and designated as OIC-Training Manager.
In September 2017, she became pregnant with her second child. When she informed her Training Manager, Sutherland announced a temporary transfer of all its trainers to its Clark Office. Despite her pregnancy, Paulino agreed to the transfer as it was merely temporary, expecting hotel accommodations near the Clark Office; that shuttle services would be provided; and that she would be given per diem allowance for daily expenses.
A few hours after she consented to the transfer to the Clark Office, Sutherland informed Paulino that her assignment would be at the Tarlac Office instead. Because of her pregnancy, Paulino became hesitant to accept the assignment, but her Training Manager and Training Director assured her that Sutherland would provide shuttle services for her.
Paulino complied with Sutherland’s directives and conducted training sessions at the Tarlac Office despite her sensitive condition caused by her pregnancy. She spent three and a half hours of travel every day from the Hotel in Clark to the Tarlac Office, and vice versa. She experienced motion sickness due to the strenuous work Sutherland required her to do. As she could no longer continue because of her sickness. Sutherland ended their training sessions in Tarlac. Consequently, Sutherland assigned her to the Clark Office.
During a one-on-one session in the Clark Office with Moussa, her Training Manager, berated Paulino and blamed her for the dissolution of the training sessions at the Tarlac Office and described her performance as not “trainer-like.”
Sutherland transferred Paulino to the Production Area of the Clark Office, wherein she brought with her a blanket to the Production Area, as it was cold and she only had limited clothing, as she was merely on a temporary assignment. While the trainees were entitled to a 15-minute break, she would choose to take the break inside the Production Area rather than to spend it at their designated sleeping quarters, which were remotely located. Despite her knowledge of her pregnancy, Moussa barred her from bringing a blanket into the Production Area, and for “aesthetic reasons,” Moussa likewise prevented her from bringing a bag to or taking a break at the Production Area.
Worse, Sutherland decided to change Paulino’s assignment at the Clark Office from temporary to permanent. Sometime on December 17, Moussa asked her if she wanted to be assigned permanently at the Clark Office. While the assignment appeared optional, Moussa clarified that if she did not accept the permanent assignment, she would be placed on a floating status indefinitely with no pay. Thus, Paulino was forced to accept the permanent assignment. Moussa then promised to give her a relocation allowance, but the same never materialized. On January 30, 2018, Paulino requested Moussa to extend her stay at the Hotel for just a day, as she had not yet found a place to rent near the Clark Office. Moussa refused to extend Paulino’s hotel accommodation. Instead, she directed Paulino to take a forced leave.
On February 24, 2019, Paulino filed an application for leave of absence for one week, as she was suffering from a urinary tract infection. Moussa received the application. On March 5, 2018, Paulino went to Sutherland to submit the Medical Certificate prepared by her doctor and the SSS Form, which stated that she would need a 40-day rest. Despite having filed her medical leave of absence, Sutherland included her in their company’s “Absconding List,” and consequently, withheld her salary, which was due on March 15, 2018.
Paulino eventually gave birth via Cesarean section on April 23, 2018, while still struggling to receive her withheld pay to cover the hospital bills.
On the last day of her maternity leave on June 28, 2018, Paulino, with the assent of Moussa, used three of her earned leaves of absence to look for a babysitter. Unfortunately, after the lapse of three days, she was unable to find one. Paulino then asked Moussa for an extension, but Moussa denied the same.
Since Paulino could not find a babysitter in Clark, she requested to be reassigned to the Shaw Office so she could take care of the baby. Moussa rejected this, citing an unmentioned “relocation bond.” Out of frustration, Paulino asked Moussa if she should just resign because no one would take care of her newborn baby. In response, Moussa stated that Sutherland’s policy requires a 30-day notice before an employee can resign, but in Paulino’s case, Moussa stated that she would immediately approve her resignation in disregard of company policy.
Paulino tendered her resignation from Sutherland in a letter dated June 30, 2018, citing “unbearable and inhumane” conditions.
Thereafter, Paulino filed a Complaint for constructive dismissal, separation pay instead of reinstatement, non-payment of 13th-month pay, and moral and exemplary damages against the respondents. In ruling, the Labor Arbiter declared that there is nothing in the records which showed that Moussa forced Paulino to resign. According to the Labor Arbiter, Paulino “sought too much privilege just because she was pregnant.” Paulino then appealed to the NLRC.
In its Decision, the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter’s Decision and partially granted Paulino’s Appeal. The NLRC declared that Paulino was constructively dismissed from employment by Sutherland because Paulino’s resignation was triggered by the harsh, hostile, and unfavorable conditions set by Sutherland during Paulino’s period of pregnancy. Sutherland moved for reconsideration but was denied by the NLRC.
The Court of Appeals granted Sutherland’s Petition for Certiorari and reversed the NLRC Decision. The Court of Appeals found that Paulino expressly and unconditionally stated her desire to resign from Sutherland; hence, there was no dismissal to speak of. Additionally, the Court of Appeals stated that even if the option to resign originated from the employer, the resignation is still voluntary so long as the employee’s intent to relinquish concurs with the overt act of relinquishment.
ISSUE: Whether or not Paulino was constructively dismissed from employment.
Ruling
Yes, Paulino was constructively dismissed from employment.
The Supreme Court discussed that constructive dismissal or constructive discharge exists “‘when continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely as the offer of employment involves a demotion in rank or diminution in pay.” It likewise exists where “an act of clear discrimination, insensibility, or disdain by an employer becomes so unbearable on the part of the employee that it could foreclose any choice by him [or her] except to forego his [or her] continued employment. ” Stated otherwise, even without a demotion in rank or diminution in pay, there may still be constructive dismissal in cases where the employee was forced to resign because of discrimination.
The Supreme Court, as the primary duty bearer and as the last bulwark of justice and democracy, is constitutionally mandated to protect working women against all forms of discrimination and to ensure that they enjoy decent work environments, with due regard to their maternal functions.
Article XIII, Section 14 of the 1987 Constitution states:
“SECTION 14. The State shall protect working women by providing safe and healthful working conditions, taking into account their maternal functions, and such facilities and opportunities that will enhance their welfare and enable them to realize their full potential in the service of the nation.”
Additionally, Section 5(b) in relation to Section 22 of the Magna Carta of Women reads:
“SEC. 5. The State as the Primary Duty-Bearer. – The State, as the primary duty-bearer, shall:
x x x
(b) Protect women against discrimination and from violation of their rights by private corporations, entities, and individuals; and
x x x
The State shall fulfill these duties through law, policy, regulatory instruments, administrative guidelines, and other appropriate measures, including temporary special measures.”
x x x
“SEC. 22. Right to Decent Work. – The State shall progressively realize and ensure decent work standards for women that involve the creation of jobs of acceptable quality in conditions of freedom, equity, security, and human dignity.
(a) Decent work involves opportunities for work that are productive and fairly remunerative as family living wage, security in the workplace, and social protection for families, better prospects for personal development and social integration, freedom for people to express their concerns organize, participate in the decisions that affect their lives, and equality of opportunity and treatment for all women and men.
(b) The State shall further ensure:
(1) Support services and gears to protect them from occupational and health hazards, taking into account women’s maternal functions;
(2) Support services that will enable women to balance their family obligations and work responsibilities including, but not limited to, the establishment of day care centers and breastfeeding stations at the workplace, and providing maternity leave pursuant to the Labor Code and other pertinent laws;”
Thus, the circumstances of Paulino’s employment in Sutherland, taken collectively, demonstrate the discrimination on account of her pregnancy. Such discrimination constitutes not only constructive dismissal but also a violation of the Magna Carta of Women.