punctuality issues, her over-all performance as a CSR/TSR cannot be said to bebelow par given the annual merit increase and the certificate of achievementawarded to her. If indeed, private respondent corporation had troubletransferring the petitioner to another post because of her derogatory record, thecorporation could just have dismissed her for cause.After petitioner’s unjustified transfer, she was informed by private respondentcorporation that she could not be "certified" or allowed to handle calls for thenew account because of her absence during training. She was later placed on afloating status and was not given another post.The Court considers placing the petitioner on a floating status as anotherunjustified action of the private respondent corporation prejudicial to petitioneras employee. In this case, except for private respondent corporation’s bareassertion that petitioner no longer reported to the human resources departmentas instructed, no proof was offered to prove that petitioner intended to sever theemployer-employee relationship. Private respondent corporation also offered nocredible explanation why it failed to provide a new assignment to petitioner. Itsassertion that it is petitioner’s derogatory record which made it difficult for thecorporation to transfer her to another account despite its efforts is not sufficientto discharge the burden of proving that there are no posts or no accountsavailable or willing to accept her.In Nationwide Security and Allied Services, Inc. vs. Valderama,33 the SupremeCourt declared that due to the grim economic consequences to the employee ofbeing placed on a floating status, the employer should bear the burden ofproving that there are no posts available to which the employee temporarily outof work can be assigned.These acts by the private respondent corporation, of transferring petitioner toanother account without sufficient cause and proper notice and its subsequentfailure to provide a new post for her for two months without credibleexplanation, constitute unjustified actions prejudicial to the petitioner as anemployee, making it unbearable for her to continue employment.Thus, petitioner opted to resign, albeit involuntarily. The involuntariness of herresignation is evident in her letter which states categorically:"I was forced to resign due to the reason that my employment was made on‘floating status’ effective August 4, 2007 and up to the present (almost twomonths) I haven’t receive [sic] any notice from you or the HR department toreport for work despite my repeated follow-up to your office thru telephone andmobile phone text messages.1avvphi1 Hence, I consider your inaction to myfollow-up as an indirect termination of my work with ICT."Further, petitioner immediately filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.