3/31/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly In Tuason v. Bank of Commerce, et al.,[61] the employer asked the employee to resign to save her from embarrassment, and when the latter did not comply, the employer hired another person to replace the employee. This Court ruled that this was a clear case of constructive dismissal.[62] In Torreda v. Investment and Capital Corporation of the Philippines[63] (Torreda), this Court said that it cannot allow the employer to resort to an improper method of forcing the employee to sign a prepared resignation letter. It held that the employee's resignation letter must be struck down for being involuntary.[64] It also declared that when the employer has no legitimate basis to terminate its employee, the latter cannot be forced to resign from work because it would be a dismissal in disguise,[65] i.e., a constructive dismissal. "Under the law, there are no shortcuts in terminating the security of tenure of an employee."[66] In a similar vein, the circumstances of the present case strongly indicate that respondent was constructively dismissed. First, Saad Mutlaq, respondent's foreign employer, never secured a working visa for her, in violation of the categorical requirement for an employer's accreditation with the Philippine Overseas Employment Agency.[67] Second, respondent was not properly paid in accordance with the terms of her employment contract.[68] During her three-month stay, she was only paid US$227.75 instead of the stipulated pay of US$400 per month.[69] Third, respondent was not assigned to a permanent employer abroad for the entire contractual period of two years.[70] Upon her arrival in Kuwait, she was consistently promised job placements which were found to be inexistent.[71] As noted by the NLRC, it was clear that Saad Mutlaq intended to use respondent as an entertainer of some sort in places of ill repute; and she would have fallen victim to human trafficking "[w]ere it not for some favorable providence."[72] Finally, similar to the case of Torreda,[73] herein respondent was made to copy and sign a prepared resignation letter and this was made as a condition for the release of her passport and plane ticket. In light of these, the Court finds that, indeed, it was logical for respondent to consider herself constructively dismissed. The impossibility, unreasonableness, or unlikelihood of continued employment has left respondent with no other viable recourse but to terminate her employment.[74] Petitioners also argue that the CA overlooked the error committed by the NLRC when it failed to appreciate the legal significance of the medical certificate presented by respondent showing that she suffered an incomplete abortion on April 9, 2011. Petitioners allege that respondent was probably pregnant while she was in Kuwait and this is the reason that she requested for her repatriation. The argument deserves scant consideration in view of petitioners' failure to faithfully comply with the terms of respondent's contract of employment. Notably, none among the LA, the NLRC and the CA delved into this issue. Besides, the Court need not rule on each and every issue raised, particularly if the issue will not vary the tenor of the Court's ultimate ruling.[75] As the Court declared in Olarte v. Nayona:[76] https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65972 7/12