Atty. Matorre filed a complaint against her former employer, HBV Law Firm, claiming constructive illegal dismissal due to harassment by Atty. Hechanova. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of HBV Law Firm, but the NLRC and CA reversed this decision. However, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of HBV Law Firm, finding that Atty. Matorre failed to prove her resignation was involuntary or that she was constructively dismissed. Specifically, the Court found that Atty. Matorre presented no witnesses to corroborate her harassment claims, while HBV Law Firm presented affidavits showing no inappropriate behavior. The Court also found that changing the resignation date and ceasing work assignments were valid exercises of management
Atty. Matorre filed a complaint against her former employer, HBV Law Firm, claiming constructive illegal dismissal due to harassment by Atty. Hechanova. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of HBV Law Firm, but the NLRC and CA reversed this decision. However, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of HBV Law Firm, finding that Atty. Matorre failed to prove her resignation was involuntary or that she was constructively dismissed. Specifically, the Court found that Atty. Matorre presented no witnesses to corroborate her harassment claims, while HBV Law Firm presented affidavits showing no inappropriate behavior. The Court also found that changing the resignation date and ceasing work assignments were valid exercises of management
Atty. Matorre filed a complaint against her former employer, HBV Law Firm, claiming constructive illegal dismissal due to harassment by Atty. Hechanova. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of HBV Law Firm, but the NLRC and CA reversed this decision. However, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of HBV Law Firm, finding that Atty. Matorre failed to prove her resignation was involuntary or that she was constructively dismissed. Specifically, the Court found that Atty. Matorre presented no witnesses to corroborate her harassment claims, while HBV Law Firm presented affidavits showing no inappropriate behavior. The Court also found that changing the resignation date and ceasing work assignments were valid exercises of management
HECHANOVA BUGAY VILCHEZ LAWYERS, HECHANOVA & CO., INC., ATTY. EDITHA R. HECHANOVA vs. ATTY. LENY O. MATORRE VILLARAMA, JR.,J. FACTS: Atty. Matorre was employed by HBV Law Firm as a Senior Associate Attorney on August 1, 2008 as a regular employee under the supervision of Atty. Hechanova. Allegedly, during her stay in the law firm, Atty. Matorre was being harrassed by Atty. Hechanova which rendered her to resign with the firm effective September 30, 2008. Her resignation was accepted however, it was moved to September 15, 2008. Consequently, Atty. Matorre filed a complaint before the NLRC for constructive illegal dismissal against HBV Law Firm. He also demanded for damages and public apology. The Labor Arbiter rendered judgment in favor of HBV Law Firm. However, it was reversed by the NLRC which was also upheld by the CA. Hence, the petition. ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Matore's resignation was voluntary and that she was not constructively dismissed. RULING: YES. The Supreme Court ruled that Atty. Matorre failed to prove that her resignation was not voluntary, and that Atty. Hechanova and other members of HBV Law Firm committed acts against her that would constitute constructive dismissal. Atty. Matorre was not able to prove her allegations of harassment, insults, and verbal abuse on the part of Atty. Hechanova. First, Atty. Matorre was not able to present a single witness to corroborate her claims of verbal abuse and insults from Atty. Hechanova. On the other hand, the body of evidence presented by HBV Law Firm would show affidavits demonstrating that the other personnel in the said law firm neither heard nor saw any inappropriate behavior on the part of Atty. Hechanova towards Atty. Matorre. Second, the act of HBV Law Firm of moving the effectivity date of Atty. Matorres resignation from September 30, 2008 to September 15, 2008 is not an act of harassment but rather merely the exercise of the firms management prerogative. Third, the fact that HBV Law Firm was no longer assigning new work to Atty. Matorre after her resignation is also an exercise of management prerogative. Evidently, she was no longer given additional assignments to ensure a smooth turn-over of duties and work. Moreover, since Atty. Matorre admittedly resigned, it was incumbent upon her to prove that her resignation was not voluntary, but was actually a case of constructive dismissal, with clear, positive, and convincing evidence. WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The complaint of respondent Atty. Leny O. Matorre for illegal dismissal is DISMISSED.