FACTS, ISSUE/S AND RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT

FACTS, ISSUE/S AND RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT.

LOURDES C.RODRIGUEZ VS. PARK N RIDE.

FACTS. On January 30,1984, Lourdes Rodriguez was hired by spouses Vicente & Estelita B. Javier as Restaurant Supervisor for their restaurant at Vicest Phils . Later, when the restaurant closed, she was transferred to do office work and became an Administrative and Finance assistant to Estelita Javier . As the spouses ventured into other businesses, establishing more companies, petitioner’s duties extended to handling personnel, finance and administrative matters of these companies without additional compensation..

She allegedly worked from 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Mondays to Saturdays; was on call on Sundays; and worked during Christmas and other holidays. She was deducted an equivalent of two (2) days & wage for every day of absence and was not paid any service incentive leave pay . She filed a resignation letter effective April 25, 2009 however the spouses did not accept her resignation and convinced her to stay on. However her experience became worse as Estelita allegedly became more unreasonable, hot-headed and would belittle and embarrass her in the presence of co-workers..

ISSUE/S. Whether or not complainant was constructively dismissed..

RULLING OF THE SUPREME COURT. Affirming the decision of the Court of appeals with modifications, the Supreme Court ruled that petitioner was not constructively dismissed . There is constructive dismissal when an employers act of clear discrimination, insensibility or disdain becomes so unbearable on the part of the employee so as to foreclose any choice on his part except to resign from such employment.71 It exists where there is involuntary resignation because of the harsh, hostile and unfavorable conditions set by the employer..

Petitioner was neither terminated on September 22, 2009 nor was she constructively dismissed. There was no showing of bad faith or malicious design by the respondents that would make her work conditions unbearable. On the other hand, it is a fact that petitioner enjoyed the privilege of working closely with the Javier Spouses and having their full trust and confidence . Thus, the prescriptive period with respect to petitioner’s claim for her entire service incentive leave pay commenced only from the time of her resignation or separation from employment. Since petitioner had filed her complaint on October 7, 2009, or a few days after her resignation in September 2009, her claim for service incentive leave pay has not prescribed. Accordingly, petitioner must be awarded service incentive leave pay for her entire 25 years of service-from 1984 to 2009-and not only three (3) years & worth (2006 to 2009) as determined by the Court of Appeals.