Moreover, it was complainant herself who personally used the

respondent banks fund without authority or valid cause and it was her bank
account in which the company funds were deposited.

There was no evidence of dismissal to speak of after the preventive

suspension, Complainants suspension was lifted effective July 10, 2014 and
she was ordered in the Notice dated June 18, 2014 that she should report on
July 10, 2014. There was no dismissal to speak of merely complainants
unsubstantiated conclusion that she was dismissed. As a matter of fact,
complainant could not name the particular person who affected her dismissal
and under what particular circumstances.

Complainant was not dismissed after her suspension instead this office
finds that she was no longer interested to return to work and she intends to
severe her employment with respondent bank. These facts she admitted
under oath in her position paper. The fundamental issue of whether or not
complainant was, in fact, dismissed from her employment can only be
resolve where the respondents have committed a positive and overt act of
dismissal. This office is constrained to resolve the fundamental issue in
the negative. This office finds no evidence of any overt, positive and
unequivocal act that the respondents dismissed complainant from his
employment.

Complainants unsubstantiated allegation of having been constructively

terminated from her work cannot be accorded credence for it is obvious that
being unhappy and displeased with the company. It was she herself who is
no longer interested to continue her employment with the respondents.
Thus, she sought assistance in DOLE-Bukidnon Office on June 23, 2014 for
fair Labor Practice, Non-Payment of separation Pay, Non-Payment of Sick
Leave, Vacation Leave, 13th Month pay and June 16-18 Salary, she did not
include illegal dismissal as an issue. Under these circumstances, it cannot,
therefore, be said that complainant was dismissed, constructively or
otherwise.