Digitel Telecommunications Philippines, Inc. vs. Soriano

A resignation that is voluntarily made, accepted by the employer, and followed by a quitclaim does not constitute constructive dismissal unless the employee presents substantial, credible, and non-hearsay evidence that she was compelled to resign by acts of sexual harassment or intolerable working conditions. Under Rule 65, the Court of Appeals may reverse an NLRC decision only upon a showing of grave abuse of discretion, and it may not re-weigh the sufficiency of evidence where the NLRC’s factual findings are supported by substantial evidence.

Digitel Telecommunications Philippines, Inc. hired Mariquit Soriano, then 48 years old, as Director for Market and Communications effective August 15, 1998. Her immediate superior was Senior Vice President Eric J. Severino; the next higher officer was Senior Executive Vice President Johnson Robert L. Go. During her first six months, Soriano received a performance rating of 92% (Above Average). Shortly thereafter, she had a conflict with one of her managers, Joselito Macachor, over an advertisement error and sought his termination. Severino instead arranged Macachor’s transfer. Soriano’s performance subsequently declined; her review for April 1999 to April 2000 showed a rating of 60% (Average), with a note from Severino urging her to overcome the “residual effects” of the Macachor situation. Tensions with her two remaining managers, Evelyn Inductivo and Andrea Arnedo, escalated after Soriano gave them unfavorable evaluations; both managers formally protested and accused Soriano of harassment. Soriano demanded their transfer or dismissal; management again declined. On June 27, 2000, Soriano filed a letter of resignation effective June 30, 2000, which Severino acknowledged and forwarded to Human Resources. On August 22, 2000, she executed a Deed of Quitclaim and Release acknowledging receipt of P97,560.02 and declaring her resignation was of her own free will, releasing Digitel from all claims. About five months later, she met with Go seeking financial assistance, then later attempted to withdraw the resignation, but the company refused.

• Nature of Employment: Mariquit Soriano, a Bachelor of Science in Nutrition graduate and graduate school student, was hired by Digitel as Director for Market and Communications effective August 15, 1998, at age 48. Her immediate superior was Senior Vice President Eric J. Severino; the next higher officer was Senior Executive Vice President Johnson Robert L. Go. Three managers worked under her: Evelyn P. Inductivo, Andrea S. Arnedo, and Joselito Macachor.
• Initial Performance and First Conflict: Soriano’s performance review for August 17, 1998 to February 15, 1999 showed a 92% (Above Average) rating. She later had a rift with Macachor over an advertisement error and sought his termination. Severino arranged Macachor’s transfer to another department instead. Soriano’s performance soon deteriorated.
• Deteriorating Performance and Conflicts with Subordinates: For the period April 1, 1999 to April 1, 2000, Soriano received a 60% (Average) rating with a notation from Severino that she should overcome the “residual effects” of the Macachor situation and return to a “sunny and cheerful disposition.” Soriano gave unfavorable evaluations to her two remaining managers, Evelyn and Andrea. In memoranda, Evelyn charged Soriano with harassment and violation of company rules; Andrea questioned the factual basis of her poor rating, attributing it to Soriano’s “hatred, prejudice, revenge and a desire to get rid” of her. Soriano demanded the termination of both managers, but management retained them.
• Resignation and Quitclaim: On June 27, 2000, Soriano left a letter of resignation in Severino’s office, dated June 28, 2000 and effective at the close of business on June 30, 2000. The letter thanked Severino for the opportunity of working with him. The Human Resources Department received the letter on June 28, 2000. On August 22, 2000, Soriano executed a Deed of Quitclaim and Release, acknowledging receipt of P97,560.02 and declaring her resignation was of her own free will, releasing Digitel and its officers from all claims in connection with her employment.
• Subsequent Contacts and Attempt to Withdraw Resignation: In January 2001, through a mutual friend, Soriano met with Go and pleaded for financial assistance. Go referred her to Executive Vice President Policarpio Pau. Soriano told Pau she had been advised by her lawyer to explore means of settling her case with Go, and she mentioned needing money for her children’s education abroad, a business, and lawyers’ fees. Pau understood her implication as an attempt to extort money and informed her the company had only intended a humanitarian separation pay, which she was not entitled to. Soriano also tried to withdraw her resignation; she spoke with Severino and later with HR Vice President Ma. Lourdes Claveria. Severino declined the withdrawal, and Claveria witnessed Soriano become hysterical and sleep in her office for hours.
• Criminal Complaints: On May 28, 2001—eleven months after her resignation—Soriano filed criminal complaints against Go and Severino for violation of the Anti-Sexual Harassment Law (R.A. 7877) and/or acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code. The Quezon City Prosecutor initially found probable cause for acts of lasciviousness against Go, but on appeal by Go, the Department of Justice reversed the Prosecutor’s resolution on April 4, 2005, finding improbability that the acts occurred in crowded settings, no corroborating witness from among sixty guests, and Soriano’s conduct after the alleged incidents inconsistent with a victim of sexual assault.

• Filing of Constructive Dismissal Complaint: On December 20, 2001, Soriano filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before the NLRC, later clarifying that her cause of action was constructive dismissal, alleging that Go and Severino sexually and professionally harassed her, forcing her to resign.

• Alleged Incidents of Harassment — Soriano’s Version:

  • Against Go: (1) In May 1999, during a cocktail party at Manila Galleria Suites, Go insisted she sit down so he could look at her legs. (2) On August 20, 1999, at a sales conference at Manila Midtown Hotel, he repeatedly dropped his hand on her lap and stroked her thighs. (3) In October 1999, at a farewell party, he insisted on dancing with her and pinched her waist when she tried to sit. (4) On November 19, 1999, at a party at Pau’s residence, Go cornered her on a sofa, massaged her hand, placed his hand under a throw pillow and poked her vagina several times, later pressed her close while dancing, groped her breast, caressed her back, and reached inside her blouse from brassiere to buttocks, while whispering he could make her life easy if she were “nice” to him. (5) On February 11, 2000, at a dinner party, Go rubbed his hand across her back to feel her brassiere.
  • Against Severino: He stared at her legs and between her thighs during meetings, intentionally pointed to her legs to a fellow officer, walked behind her to view her thighs when she picked up items, brushed his legs against hers, and asked her to wear shorts during out-of-town trips. After the November 19, 1999 incident with Go, she reported it to Severino, who replied, “I saw what happened. I have eyes too.”
• Corroborating Affidavits Submitted by Soriano:
  • Grace J. Sta. Clara (a friend) narrated what Soriano told her about Severino staring at her crotch and Go’s actions, including “Hinipuan ako sa boobs at dinukot yon pipi ko.” She stated Soriano hesitated to sue for fear of losing her job.
  • Francisco C. Wenceslao (father of one of Soriano’s children, with whom she was again sleeping at the time) relayed Soriano’s accounts of the August and November 1999 incidents, and stated Go was reputed to be a womanizer. Wenceslao encouraged Soriano to stay in the job despite the alleged harassment.
• Evidence Submitted by Petitioners:
  • Grace D. Rallos-Bakunawa, former VP for Human Resources, attested she never saw Go shower unusual attention on Soriano; at the November 19 party she sat between Go and Soriano and noticed nothing unusual.
  • Executive Vice President Policarpio Pau stated he hosted the November 19, 1999 party; the area was small and well lighted; he saw no unusual or indecent acts by Go toward Soriano, nor at the other parties cited.
  • Ma. Purisima Y. Velasco stated Go talked to Soriano for a while and then joined other guests.
  • Andrea Arnedo and Evelyn Inductivo denied witnessing any sexual harassment and described Go and Severino as gentlemen who would not act as alleged; they also highlighted inconsistencies in Soriano’s behavior during meetings.
  • Psychological Evaluation Report: Dr. Estrella T. Tiongson-Magno issued a report diagnosing Soriano with Major Depression and Narcissistic/Borderline Personality with compulsive and histrionic features. The report listed “Sexual Harassment and job loss” as a psychosocial stressor but did not detail how the harassment occurred or provide corroboration. The Court of Appeals heavily relied on this report; petitioners contested its probative value.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion Not Shown: Petitioners contended the Court of Appeals erred in giving due course to Soriano’s certiorari petition because no grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction was committed by the NLRC or the Labor Arbiter. Judicial review under Rule 65 is limited to jurisdictional issues, not sufficiency of evidence.
• Factual Findings Supported by Substantial Evidence: Petitioners argued the appellate court reversed findings of fact that were consistent and supported by substantial evidence. Under settled doctrine, the factual determinations of labor tribunals that have the primary opportunity to appreciate evidence are entitled to great weight and finality absent a clear showing of palpable error.
• Lack of Credible Evidence of Sexual Harassment and Constructive Dismissal: Petitioners maintained that the evidence on record did not establish that sexual harassment occurred. Soriano’s own allegations were incredible, the affidavits of Sta. Clara and Wenceslao were hearsay, and no independent eyewitness corroborated her claims. The psychological evaluation report merely repeated Soriano’s assertions without establishing the truth of the alleged harassment. Petitioners also pointed to the Department of Justice reversal of the finding of probable cause as reinforcing the lack of substance in Soriano’s charges.
• Improper Re-Appreciation of Evidence by the Court of Appeals: Petitioners faulted the Court of Appeals for giving undue credence to the psychologist’s report while dismissing the affidavits of employer’s witnesses as biased merely because of the employment relationship, contrary to jurisprudence that such relationship alone does not discredit testimony.
• Erroneous Award of Monetary Relief: Given the absence of illegal dismissal, petitioners submitted that the award of backwages, separation pay, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees had no legal or factual basis.

• Constructive Dismissal through Sexual and Professional Harassment: Soriano maintained that Go’s repeated sexual advances and Severino’s hostile, demeaning conduct (staring, brushing against her, unreasonable demands, refusal to transfer insubordinate managers, and a 60% performance rating after an initial 92%) created a work environment so intolerable that she was compelled to resign. The resignation was not voluntary but forced.
• NLRC Gravely Abused Its Discretion: Soriano argued that the NLRC arbitrarily disregarded clear and convincing proof of sexual harassment, ignored the psychological evaluation report’s conclusion that her behavioral problems stemmed from sexual trauma, and selectively credited only portions unfavorable to her.
• Delay in Filing Not Fatal: Relying on Philippine Aelous Automotive United Corporation v. NLRC, Soriano contended there is no prescriptive period for reporting sexual harassment; the time varies with the victim’s emotional threshold. Her delay of eleven months in filing the criminal complaint and over a year for the labor complaint was attributed to trauma and fear.
• Eyewitnesses Suppressed by Employer: Soriano claimed that Digitel employees who could have corroborated her story were warned against testifying under threat of dismissal, as evidenced by the failure of employee Matet Ruiz to meet with her and the affidavit of Grace Murphy.
• Quitclaim Invalid: Since the resignation was not voluntary, Soriano argued the Deed of Quitclaim and Release executed under duress and economic pressure should not bar her claim.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Whether the Court of Appeals correctly gave due course to the petition for certiorari on the ground that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the constructive dismissal complaint.
• Constructive Dismissal: Whether Mariquit Soriano was forced to resign due to sexual harassment and professional harassment, thereby amounting to constructive dismissal, or whether she voluntarily resigned.
• Credibility of Harassment Evidence: Whether the evidence presented by Soriano—her own testimony, the affidavits of Sta. Clara and Wenceslao, and the psychological evaluation report—constituted substantial proof of sexual harassment sufficient to overturn the factual findings of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC.
• Effect of Quitclaim and Delay: Whether the Deed of Quitclaim and Release and the substantial delay in filing the harassment complaint undermined Soriano’s claim of constructive dismissal.
• Award of Backwages and Damages: Whether the Court of Appeals’ award of backwages, separation pay, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees was justified.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion: The Court of Appeals erred in giving due course to the certiorari petition. Under Rule 65, judicial review of NLRC decisions is confined to issues of lack or excess of jurisdiction and grave abuse of discretion. The query does not extend to assessing and weighing the sufficiency of evidence unless the NLRC’s findings lack substantial evidentiary support. Soriano failed to demonstrate that the NLRC acted arbitrarily or disregarded material evidence; to the contrary, the NLRC explicitly considered the record and found substantial evidence that she voluntarily resigned.
• Constructive Dismissal: Constructive dismissal was not established. The NLRC—and the Labor Arbiter whose report it adopted—found that Soriano voluntarily resigned when Severino refused her demands to transfer her two managers. Her pattern of threatening resignation when management did not accede to her requests, her cordial resignation letter thanking Severino, her execution of a quitclaim, and her subsequent attempt to withdraw the resignation only after its acceptance all pointed to a voluntary act, not one forced by harassment. A resignation accepted by the employer cannot be unilaterally withdrawn.
• Credibility of Harassment Evidence: Soriano’s claim of sexual harassment did not pass the test of credibility under the standard that evidence must not only proceed from a credible witness but must be credible in itself as common experience and observation of mankind can approve. The affidavits of Sta. Clara and Wenceslao were purely hearsay; they had no personal knowledge of the alleged incidents. No eyewitness from among the numerous guests at the parties corroborated Soriano’s narrative. Her account of the November 19, 1999 incident—being trapped on a sofa in a crowded, well-lighted room while Go allegedly poked her vagina repeatedly without anyone noticing, then dancing with him afterward—was contrary to normal human behavior. The psychological evaluation report, while listing sexual harassment as a stressor, did not independently establish the occurrence of harassment; it merely repeated the patient’s self-report. The NLRC’s assessment of the evidence was supported by substantial evidence, including the affidavits of disinterested company officers who were present and saw nothing amiss.
• Effect of Quitclaim and Delay: The Deed of Quitclaim and Release, executed after resignation and acknowledging free will, fortified the finding of voluntary resignation. The extensive delay—eleven months after resignation before filing criminal charges and over a year before the labor complaint—was not adequately justified. While no rigid time period applies to sexual harassment complaints, any delay must be reasonable; here, Soriano had no reason to fear job loss at the time she resigned and executed the quitclaim, yet she remained silent. Her reliance on Philippine Aelous was misplaced because the complainant in that case raised the harassment at the earliest opportunity after termination, whereas Soriano raised it only after a failed attempt to obtain financial assistance.
• Award of Backwages and Damages: The award of backwages, separation pay, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees was rendered baseless. Since Soriano failed to prove constructive dismissal, the monetary reliefs granted by the Court of Appeals were without legal foundation and were properly set aside.

• Finality of Factual Findings of Labor Tribunals — Factual findings of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC, if supported by substantial evidence, are accorded not only great respect but finality, unless there is a showing that they arbitrarily disregarded evidence or misapprehended facts of such nature as to compel a contrary conclusion.
• Scope of Certiorari Review Under Rule 65 — In a petition for certiorari from an NLRC decision, the appellate court does not assess and weigh the sufficiency of evidence; its review is limited to determining whether the NLRC acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. An exception exists only when the NLRC’s findings are unsupported by substantial evidence.
• Constructive Dismissal — Constructive dismissal exists where an employee’s continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable, or unlikely due to a hostile or discriminatory environment, or where the employee is compelled to resign. A voluntary resignation, accepted by the employer and accompanied by a quitclaim, does not constitute constructive dismissal unless the employee proves by substantial evidence that the resignation was forced by the employer’s acts.
• Resignation Once Accepted Cannot Be Unilaterally Withdrawn — Once an employee resigns and the resignation is accepted, the employee loses all rights to the job. Any change of mind requires the employer’s consent, effectively constituting a re-application.
• Credibility of Harassment Testimony — Allegations of sexual harassment must be well substantiated. The test is whether the evidence conforms to common experience, knowledge, and observation of ordinary persons. Evidence that is repugnant to such common experience is outside judicial cognizance.
• Delay in Filing Sexual Harassment Complaint — While there is no fixed time period within which an alleged victim of sexual harassment must complain, any delay must be justifiable or reasonable so as not to cast doubt on the merits of the charge.
• Witness Credibility and Employer-Employee Relationship — The mere existence of an employer-employee relationship between a witness and a party is not of itself sufficient to discredit that witness’s testimony.
• Weight of Prosecutor’s Determination — Findings and determination of probable cause by prosecutors in preliminary investigations are given credence absent a clear showing of arbitrariness.

• “Evidence to be believed, must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness, but it must be credible in itself – such as the common experience and observation of mankind can approve as probable under the circumstances. We have no test of the truth of human testimony, except its conformity to our knowledge, observation, and experience. Whatever is repugnant to these belongs to the miraculous and is outside of judicial cognizance.” (citing Daggers v. Van Dyck) — This passage formed the core standard for rejecting Soriano’s account as improbable.
• “Any employee, male or female, may charge an employer or superior with sexual harassment, but the claim must be well substantiated.” — Emphasizing the evidentiary burden in sexual harassment claims.
• “While, as this Court stated in Philippine Aelous, there is, strictly speaking, no fixed period within which an alleged victim of sexual harassment may file a complaint, it does not mean that she or he is at liberty to file one anytime she or he wants to. Surely, any delay in filing a complaint must be justifiable or reasonable as not to cast doubt on its merits.” — Clarifying the temporal flexibility in harassment cases.
• “Once an employee resigns and his resignation is accepted, he no longer has any right to the job. If the employee later changes his mind, he must ask for approval of the withdrawal of his resignation from his employer, as if he were re-applying for the job.” — Restating the irrevocability of an accepted resignation without employer consent.

• U.I.C. v. U.I.C. Teaching & Non-Teaching Personnel and Employees Union, 414 Phil. 522 (2001) — Cited for the principle that factual findings of labor administrative officials, if supported by substantial evidence, are accorded finality.
• Pepsi-Cola Products, Phils., Inc. v. NLRC, 374 Phil. 196 (1999) — Applied to underscore that judicial review of NLRC decisions via certiorari is confined to jurisdictional issues.
• Danzas Intercontinental, Inc. v. Daguman, G.R. No. 154368, April 15, 2005 — Followed to reiterate that the appellate court in a certiorari proceeding does not reassess the sufficiency of evidence except when NLRC findings lack substantial support.
• Pono v. NLRC, G.R. No. 118860, July 17, 1997 — Relied upon for the rule that findings and determination of probable cause by prosecutors are given credence absent arbitrariness, lending weight to the DOJ’s reversal of the finding against Go.
• Philippine Aelous Automotive United Corporation v. NLRC, 387 Phil. 250 (2000) — Distinguished; while it held there is no fixed time for complaining of sexual harassment, the delay there was explained by the employee’s fear of job loss and she filed promptly upon termination, unlike Soriano who resigned voluntarily and delayed substantially.
• Lufthansa German Airlines v. CA, 313 Phil. 503 (1995) — Applied to rule that the employer-employee relationship of a witness is not of itself sufficient to discredit testimony; the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing petitioners’ witnesses as biased solely on that ground.
• Santos v. Concepcion and Santos, 103 Phil. 596 (1958) — Cited in Lufthansa for the same principle regarding witness credibility.
• Intertrod Maritime, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 81087, June 19, 1991 — Followed for the rule that a resignation, once accepted, cannot be withdrawn without the employer’s consent.

• Rule 65, Rules of Court — Governs certiorari proceedings; applied to define the limited scope of appellate review over NLRC decisions, confining it to jurisdictional errors and grave abuse of discretion.
• Article 218(d), Labor Code — Mentioned as the basis for the NLRC’s power to cite parties for contempt during the review conducted by Labor Arbiter Concepcion.
• Republic Act No. 7877 (Anti-Sexual Harassment Law) — Invoked by Soriano in her criminal complaint but ultimately not the basis for any finding of liability, as the factual foundation for harassment was deemed not established.
• Article 336, Revised Penal Code (Acts of Lasciviousness) — Likewise invoked in the criminal complaint; the DOJ’s finding of no probable cause was accepted as a factor weighing against the credibility of the harassment claim.

• LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING, Associate Justice (Chairperson)
• ANTONIO T. CARPIO, Associate Justice
• DANTE O. TINGA, Associate Justice
• PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR., Associate Justice