ODELIA S.

FUNGO, Petitioner,
vs.
LOURDES SCHOOL OF MANDALUYONG and FR. SERVILLANO BUSTAMANTE, OFM, CAP., Respondents.
G.R. No. 152531 July 27, 2007

Facts:
On June 1, 1981, Rodelia Fungo was employed by the respondent school, Lourdes School of
Mandaluyong. Fr. Bustamante authorized her to file and keep confidential documents in his office.
Sometime in 1996, Nicolas Fungo, petitioner’s husband and an elementary teacher in the same
school was dismissed from service due to low performance rating. However, petitioner suspects that the
reason stemmed the words he uttered during a faculty meeting. Nicolas said that the vision and mission of
the school is not practiced. Further, he is also one of those who signed a letter requesting Fr. Peralta, a close
rival of Fr. Bustamante, to be the rector or vice rector.
Thus, she wrote a letter to Fr. Bustamante questioning the low performance of her husband. She
questioned the cause of her husband’s termination because it was contrary on what she retrieved from the
documents filing cabinet.
Then Fr. Ramirez, school treasurer, summoned her to his office. Thereupon, she was compelled to
tender resignation otherwise she will not be given her separation pay. Thus, petitioner filed a complaint for
illegal dismissal. According to her, Fr. Ramirez urged her to tender resignation within 30 minutes when she
was summoned to his office. Fr. Ramirez threatened her that if she would not resign, her separation pay
would be forfeited.
Before her dismissal, Fr. Bustamante required petitioner to explain in writing why she should not be
dismissed from work. That according to Fr. Bustamante, petitioner reposed willful breach of trust when she
retrieved some documents from the filing cabinet wherein she was given a duplicate key to. These documents
contain the summary of efficiency ratings of all the teachers including that of her husband.
The LA found that petitioner was constructively dismissed. This was reversed by the NLRC holding
that petitioner voluntarily resigned. When her motion for reconsideration was denied, petitioner went to CA
which dismissed the petition. With her motion for reconsideration being denied, petitioner elevated the case
to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioner was constructively dismissed from the service.

HELD:
There is constructive dismissal if an act of clear discrimination, insensibility, or disdain by an employer becomes
so unbearable on the part of the employee that it would foreclose any choice by him except to forego her continued employment.
An examination of the records of the case convinced the Supreme Court that the petitioner was indeed made to resign
against her will with threat that she will not be given separation pay should she fail to do so. Clearly, her consent was vitiated. Indeed,
it is very unlikely that petitioner, who worked for almost 15 years in the school to simply resign voluntarily. Her receipt of the benefits
could be considered as an act of self-preservation, taking into consideration the financial predicament she and her family were then
facing.