Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=53004:gr-176040-2009&catid=1522&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 12:34:22+00:00

Document:
CASA CEBUANA INCORPORADA and ANGELA FIGUEROA PAULIN, Petitioners, v. IRENEO P. LEUTERIO, Respondent.
Assailed in this Petition for Review on Certiorari is the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals dated May 5, 2006 in CA-G.R. CEB-SP No. 01361, which found petitioners Casa Cebuana Incorporada and Angela Figueroa Paulin guilty of illegal dismissal.
Petitioner corporation is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing fine furniture, fixtures and ornamentation for export. On September 15, 1999, it hired respondent as manager of its Human Resources Development Department for a monthly salary of P30,000.00. Respondent was also given convertible 30 days paid leave, gasoline allowance as well as health care benefits.
On November 24, 2000, petitioner corporation extended a loan to respondent in the amount of P1,035,000.00 for the purchase of a lot, evidenced by a promissory note,2 wherein respondent authorized petitioner corporation to deduct P5,000.00 from his monthly salary as installment payment for the debt.
Subsequently, on February 24, 2003, the company's account manager, Mrs. Nemesia Gomez, told respondent that in consideration of the loan, the company president, petitioner Paulin, wanted him to execute a real estate mortgage over the lot. Respondent refused, contending that there was no agreement to that effect between him and petitioner Paulin when the loan was contracted.
On March 29, 2003, Mrs. Carmen Bugash, a company consultant, called respondent to a meeting and allegedly told him that petitioner Paulin could no longer work with him. Immediately thereafter, they both went to the office of petitioner Paulin where he was allegedly asked to resign.
Respondent denied that he offered to resign. He claimed that he did not submit any resignation letter and even reported for work on April 3, 2003. However, he was barred from entering the company premises and was allowed entry only after signing the visitor's logbook. He again spoke to Bugash who allegedly told him that the memorandum of March 29, 2003 would be issued, unless he tendered his resignation and executed a real estate mortgage in favor of the company.
1. The result of a survey among our employees would indicate that you have lost your credibility with them since you are always making promises without fulfilling them. This puts the company in bad light since it is expected that you as Personnel Manager link with management on decisions pertaining to industrial relations.
2. The expected series of value formation that you were supposed to conduct regularly was not done religiously which resulted in the deterioration of the work values of the employees, excessive overtime, quality problems, materials wastage, etc.
3. Disciplinary measures that needed to be taken in regard to AWOLS and tardiness were just left to the discretion of the supervisors, and as a result, the corresponding penalties were not imposed leading to abuse by the employees.
4. You were instructed to put teeth to the 5S program, which you started in line with your plan to be ISO accredited, but we have not seen any concrete results. A walk through the factory will clearly show that nothing was done along this line. It was all talk with no clear visible action program.
5. The recent adverse findings of DOLE on the safety standards should have been addressed by you as Personnel Manager, but it was only when a DOLE inspector came when attention was given to it. We need not emphasize here that DOLE matters are your responsibility and we accept no reason for failure to comply with requirements.
6. Mishandling of the recent security guard case, which became full blown when it could have been addressed earlier had attention been given to it.
7. Too much attention given to HUNAT movement against Corona Del Mar which has nothing to do with the company and yet its name gets dragged down as a hindrance to your efforts in fighting against Corona Del Mar. It is apparent that your extra-curricular activities have eaten up your time, which resulted in relegating your functions as a second or third priority.
On the other hand, petitioners asserted that it was respondent who borrowed money from the company and promised to execute a real estate mortgage after title to the lot was transferred to his name. However, after respondent obtained the loan, he began showing signs of aberrant behavior and lackadaisical work attitude. The employees also complained about his moody and high strung behavior.
Petitioners also alleged that respondent failed to report for work on time and refused to observe delineated working hours. He neglected to perform his job, particularly in coordinating skills and manpower, and planning and conducting proper training, job evaluation analysis, psychological evaluation and trade tests. His grossly deteriorating performance was coupled with abuse of privileges such as when he claimed gasoline allowance for two vehicles instead of only one. He also prioritized and spent company time on extra-curricular activities.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, judgment is hereby rendered by us GRANTING the petition filed in this case, ANNULLING and SETTING ASIDE the assailed Resolutions promulgated on June 27, 2005 and October 20, 2005, both by the public respondent, in NLRC Case No. V-000176-2004, ORDERING the private respondents to REINSTATE the petitioner to his position as HRD Manager without loss of seniority rights and DIRECTING the private respondents to pay him full backwages from April 3, 2003 up to the finality of this judgment.
The public respondent is hereby ordered to make proper determination of the backwages due to the petitioner as well as his separation pay should reinstatement be no longer feasible.
Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration of the appellate court's decision which was denied in a Resolution dated December 6, 2006. Hence, petitioners filed the instant petition under Rule 45.
Petitioners fault the Court of Appeals for taking cognizance of respondent's petition for certiorari because the same was allegedly filed late. They also assert that the Court of Appeals erred in declaring that respondent was illegally dismissed because there was substantial evidence to support the conclusion that he voluntarily resigned.
This vehicle stopped 20 meters from the gate. I approached him (respondent) and saluted him. He returned my salute, opened the right side window of his car and said "Guard! I am bringing with me my personal effects. Look at these because I am up to today only, I will not come back here. This is so that I will be clear and you will not get into trouble with your work." I answered him "Is that so, sir? Let's look at them and I will enter them in my logbook."
According to petitioners, it may be reasonably inferred from the foregoing that respondent had already quit his job. The lack of a resignation letter does not necessarily disprove respondent's voluntary resignation, as the events described above show a clear intent on the part of respondent to relinquish employment. As correctly observed by the Court of Appeals, however, the security guard's report does not conclusively establish the fact of respondent's resignation, but merely narrates the standard procedure employed by security guards in checking vehicles that pass through company gates. Likewise, the statement of respondent that he was "up to today only" and that he will "not come back here" does not necessarily indicate that he resigned from employment, but could also mean that he was leaving the company due to other causes.
In light of the prevailing circumstances in this case, we are convinced that respondent did not voluntarily resign and was in fact illegally dismissed from employment. Petitioners admit that during the meeting in petitioner Paulin's office on March 29, 2003, respondent was shown a notice/memorandum detailing his alleged infractions, which the latter refused to receive.16 Instead, respondent allegedly asked that he be allowed to resign because he did not want the stain of dismissal on his employment record.
We regret to inform you that we will have to terminate your services at the earliest possible time in view of the loss of trust and confidence in your ability to handle your present position. This is brought about by the series of events which has made your stay with the company untenable.
Thus, it can be seen that when respondent went to petitioner Paulin's office together with Bugash, petitioners were decided on terminating his services.
The lack of any resignation letter on the part of respondent is significant, considering petitioner's assertion that he "pleaded" to be allowed to resign during the meeting held on March 29, 2003. If respondent had indeed opted to avail of this alternative, then there would have been nothing to prevent petitioners from asking respondent to tender a resignation letter at that very moment. However, respondent did no such thing and even went back several times to speak to Bugash until he was finally barred from entering company premises on April 3, 2003.
Moreover, respondent filed his complaint with the NLRC soon after the last meeting with Bugash. Needless to say, the filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal is difficult to reconcile with voluntary resignation.18 Had respondent intended to voluntarily relinquish his employment, he would not have immediately sought redress from the NLRC. Respondent clearly manifested that he had no intention of resigning when he urgently and vigorously pursued this case against petitioners.
In Fungo v. Lourdes School of Mandaluyong,19 we defined resignation as "the voluntary act of employees who are compelled by personal reasons to disassociate themselves from their employment. It must be done with the intention of relinquishing an office, accompanied by the act of abandonment."20 In this case, the evidence on record suggests that respondent did not voluntarily resign. The more logical conclusion, based on the evidence, is that respondent was then being forced or pressured to resign, which is tantamount to illegal dismissal.
We cannot lend credence to petitioners' claim that respondent was merely given a "graceful exit." Their reliance on our ruling in Willi Hahn Enterprises and/or Willi Hahn v. Lilia R. Maghuyop21 is misplaced, considering that, in said case, respondent had clearly resigned by tendering a resignation letter even before the petitioners could initiate termination proceedings. In contrast, respondent in this case did not execute any resignation letter and, in fact, resisted pressures for him to resign.
Consequently, we find no merit in petitioners' contention that respondent waived any intended investigation on his alleged infractions by offering to resign instead. The meeting held on March 29, 2003 was not meant to inform respondent of any planned investigation, but was called to formally apprise respondent of his termination from employment. Prior to said meeting, respondent had not been given any form of notice regarding the charges against him or the opportunity to refute these charges. Bugash even told respondent that petitioner Paulin "could no longer work with him," thereby signifying that respondent's services was being terminated.
In the case at bar, petitioners did not notify respondent of any investigation that was to be conducted on his alleged infractions. The Memorandum dated March 29, 2003 was actually a notice of termination that was ostensibly shown to respondent on the same day that he supposedly pleaded to be allowed to resign. Neither could the March 31, 2003 Memorandum be deemed to comply with the requirements of the first notice, as maintained by petitioners. This second memorandum did not state that an investigation will be conducted, but merely "confirms" what allegedly transpired during the meeting held on March 29, 2003. Respondent was thus not given an opportunity to controvert the charges leveled against him by petitioners.
A valid dismissal must comply with two requisites, namely: (a) the dismissal must be for any of the causes stated in Article 282 of the Labor Code; and (b) the employee must have been accorded due process, basic of which is the opportunity to be heard and to defend himself.24 In the instant case, petitioners failed to prove that they complied with the foregoing requirements of the law. Thus, they should be held accountable for respondents' illegal dismissal.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The May 5, 2006 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CEB-SP No. 01361 which found petitioners guilty of illegal dismissal and ordered them to reinstate respondent to his former or equivalent position without loss of seniority rights, or separation pay in case reinstatement is no longer feasible, with full backwages, is AFFIRMED in toto.
12 Id. at 91-92; penned by Associate Justice Isaias P. Dican and concurred in by Associate Justices Ramon M. Bato, Jr. and Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr.
13 Id. at 88 & 91.
14 Remington Industrial Sales Corporation v. Erlinda Castaneda, G.R. NOS. 169295-96, November 20, 2006, 507 SCRA 391, 404-405.
15 As translated from the Visayan dialect.
16 Rollo, pp. 25 & 238-239.
18 Fortuny Garments/Johnny Co v. Elena J. Castro, G.R. No. 150668, December 15, 2005, 478 SCRA 125, 131.
19 G.R. No. 152531, July 27, 2007, 528 SCRA 248.
21 G.R. No. 160348, December 17, 2004, 447 SCRA 349.
22 See Mercury Drug Corporation v. Serrano, G.R. No. 160509, March 10, 2006, 484 SCRA 434, 448.
23 Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc. v. Felicisimo Carilla, G.R. No. 157975, June 26, 2007, 525 SCRA 586, 597-598.
24 Nenuca A. Velez v. Shangri-La's Edsa Plaza Hotel, Terry Ko, Coen Masselink and Vanessa Suatengco, G.R. No. 148261, October 9, 2006, 504 SCRA 13, 24.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.