ROSALINDA G. PAREDES v. FEED THE CHILDREN PHILS INC., et al.

G.R. No. 184397, 9 September 2015 (Peralta, J.)

Bare allegations of constructive dismissal, when uncorroborated by the evidence on record,

cannot be given credence.

Rosalinda G. Paredes (Paredes) was the national director of respondent Feed The Children
Philippines, Inc. (FTCP), a non-stock, non-profit, and non-government organization duly
incorporated under Philippine laws. Forty two (42) FTCP employees signed a petition letter
addressed to the board of FTCP expressing their complaints against Paredes for alleged detestable
practices. Paredes received a phone call from her staff that auditors were already at their office. Dr.
Virginia Lao (Dr. Lao) called to instruct Paredes that she should meet the auditors and
accommodate them. She refrained from obeying the order and was adamant that she should receive
her requested information first. Consequently, FTCP’s board resolved to suspend Paredes because
of her indifferent attitude and unjustified refusal to submit an audit. Before it could be
implemented, Paredes submitted her resignation letter.

Paredes filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, claiming that she was forced to resign and
thus was constructively dismissed. She alleged that she was not included in the supervisory team
which performed her functions and issued memorandum directly to her subordinates. She further
claimed that she was excluded from FTCP’s executive committee meetings.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Paredes was constructively dismissed.

RULING:

NO. In this case, Paredes cannot be deemed constructively dismissed. She failed to present
clear and positive evidence that FTCP, through its board of trustees, committed acts of
discrimination, insensibility, or disdain towards her which rendered her continued employment
unbearable or forced her to terminate her employment from the FTCP.

As settled, bare allegations of constructive dismissal, when uncorroborated by the evidence

on record, cannot be given credence. In fact, records reveal that she wrote directly to Jones when
her contract was not to be renewed and whenever she felt threatened. She vehemently opposed the
audit and openly disobeyed the board when she was not informed of the scope. She, along with
other management staff, questioned the meetings of the Executive Committee that they were not
informed. It is also noted that her husband is a lawyer and that she employed lawyers who sent a
series of demand letters to the board to provide her the details of the audit and even ordered the
board to desist from pursuing the audit.

There was no urgency for Paredes to submit her resignation letter. In fact, the day before it
was given, she and other management staff requested for a dialogue with the board to address the
issue regarding the management and financial audit. It is, therefore, improbable that her continued
employment is rendered impossible or unreasonable. Records do not show any demotion in rank or
a diminution in pay made against her. Paredes claimed that the fact that the supervisory team
performed her functions and issued memorandum directly to her subordinates, and her being
barred from subsequent execom meetings constituted constructive dismissal. However, there was
no evidence to corroborate her claim of usurpation. She did not present evidence of the supposed
direct memorandum issued by the supervisory team to the staff. Aside from the minutes of the Sept.
29, 2005 meeting of the execom, there was no other proof of her exclusion from other subsequent
execom meetings.
The Court found that, apart from her self-serving and uncorroborated allegations, Paredes
did not present any substantial evidence of constructive dismissal. Paredes supported her claim
with the minutes of the Aug. 28, 2005 meeting and another minutes of the meeting of the execom
that she was excluded. She argued that her sudden exclusion from board meetings despite
established practice constituted grave abuse of managerial rights of FTCP.

The Court was not persuaded that her exclusion to the meeting constituted discrimination
or harassment. A careful perusal of the minutes would reveal that the board convened to deliberate
on the solution to the apparent conflict between Paredes and the staff since they have insufficient
grievance mechanism for issues involving top management. She could not fault the board to not
include her in that particular meeting since she was a party involved and to avoid possible influence
that she could have exerted.