401

Caoile v. NLRC
299 SCRA 78 [1998]
G. Rules Managerial and Rank & File Employee
FACTS: Petitioner Alejandro Caoile was employed by private
respondent Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. as an Electronic
Data Processing !pervisor in its "amboanga plant, b!t was later
dismissed on the gro!nd o# loss o# tr!st and con#idence #or his
involvement in the anomalo!s encashment o# chec$ payments to a
contractor. Contesting the gro!nd #or his dismissal, petitioner #iled a
complaint #or illegal dismissal and money claims against private
respondents.
ISSUE: %hether petitioner who was holding a managerial position
may be validly dismissed by mere e&istence o# a basis that he has
breached the tr!st o# his employer.
RULING: 'es. (ow it m!st be noted that recent decisions o# this
Co!rt has disting!ished the treatment o# managerial employees #rom
that o# ran$-and-#ile personnel, inso#ar as the application o# the
doctrine o# loss o# tr!st and con#idence is concerned. )h!s, with
respect to ran$-and-#ile personnel, loss o# tr!st and con#idence as
gro!nd #or valid dismissal re*!ires proo# o# involvement in the
alleged events in *!estion, and that mere !ncorroborated assertions
and acc!sations by the employer will not be s!##icient. B!" a#
$e%a$&# 'a(a%e$ial e')lo*ee" 'e$e e+i#!e(,e o- a .a#i# -o$
.elievi(% !/a! #,/ e')lo*ee /a# .$ea,/e& !/e !$#! o- /i#
e')lo*e$ 0ol& #--i,e -o$ /i# &i#'i##al. +ence, in the case o#
managerial employees, proo# beyond reasonable do!bt is not
re*!ired, it being s!##icient that there is some basis #or s!ch loss o#
con#idence, s!ch as when the employer has reasonable gro!nd to
believe that the employee concerned is responsible #or the p!rported
miscond!ct, and the nat!re o# his participation therein renders him
!nworthy o# the tr!st and con#idence demanded by his position.
402
1a.a(a v. NLRC
298 SCRA 237 [1998]
C. Resignation (Definition)
FACTS, )he -eneral .anager o# respondent +otel (i$$o iss!ed an
inter-department memo anno!ncing the appointment o# petitioner as
/ooms Division Director. In the co!rse o# his employment, however,
petitioner enco!ntered several di##ic!lties, among which was his
#ail!re to !nite and control his managerial sta##. )he Assistant
-eneral .anager, .asao 'o$oo, iss!ed a memo !rging petitioner to
ta$e responsibility #or the 0!nhealthy sit!ation1 and to immediately
carry o!t corrective meas!res, otherwise, the management will
intervene and ta$e action. Instead o# complying, petitioner iss!ed a
reply belying the e&istence o# any con#lict within his division. It was
#o!nd o!t that petitioner was engaged in a real estate b!siness, was
#re*!ently absent and tardy, and that there were rampant violations
o# hotel r!les d!e to petitioner2s #ail!re to e##ectively manage his
division. )here were also complaints regarding wrong $ey iss!ances
and do!ble chec$-in o# g!ests in one room. As a res!lt, .r.
)amiyas! 3$awa, who replaced .r. 'o$oo as petitioner2s immediate
s!pervisor, iss!ed a memo instr!cting petitioner and two other
managers to cond!ct a daily inspection o# the g!estrooms and the
p!blic areas. Petitioner declared that the order was a #orm o#
harassment to ease him o!t o# his position. +e iss!ed a memo
ill!strating in detail the other #orms o# harassment perpet!ated
s!pposedly by .r. 3$awa, li$e the trans#er o# petitioner to a smaller
o##ice4 the removal o# petitioner2s name as one o# the approving
o##icers in the personnel #orms4 and the e&cl!sion o# petitioner #rom
reg!lar meetings regarding /ooms Division operations. 5ater,
petitioner went to the +otel2s Comptroller, .r. Ernesto /osales,
as$ing #or his severance pay pl!s accr!ed bene#its. Be#ore
releaseing his chec$, petitioner was as$ed to s!bmit a letter o#
resignation p!rs!ant to hotel policy. A#ter dictating the contents o#
his resignation letter to .r. /osales2 secretary, he s!bmitted the
same and in t!rn received the chec$. Petitioner li$ewise e&ec!ted
an A##idavit o# 6!itclaim in #avor o# +otel (i$$o. )he ne&t day,
respondents received a letter #rom petitioner who insisted that he
was #orced to resign beca!se he co!ld no longer end!re .r.
3$awa2s acts o# harassment against him. Conse*!ently, petitioner
#iled a complaint #or illegal dismissal
ISSUE: %hether petitioner is deemed to have vol!ntarily resigned.
RULING: 'es. %e agree with private private respondents that
petitioner vol!ntarily resigned. 7ol!ntary resignation is de#ined as
the vol!ntary act an employee who 0#inds himsel# in a sit!ation where
he believes that personal reasons cannot be sacri#iced in #avor o# the
e&igency o# the service and he has no other choice b!t to
disassociate himsel# #rom his employment.1 In this case, as
indicated in the vario!s memoranda he received #rom his s!periors,
petitioner was clearly having tro!ble per#orming his job, one which
!ndeniably caries immense responsibilities. (otable too was
petitioner2s #ail!re to see eye to eye with his immediate bosses, #irst,
.r. 'o$oo and then .r. 3$awa. Beca!se o# these di##ic!lties, it was
*!ite reasonable #or petitioner to thin$ o#, and event!ally,
relin*!ishing his position vol!ntarily 8and get a #at s!m as severance
pay in the bargain9 instead o# waiting to be #ire.
4024407
A5,o$ 6a(-a,!$i(%" I(,. v. NLRC
202 SCRA 27 [1999]
C. Resignation (Requisites!oluntary Resignation)
FACTS: /espondent Candido Cap!lso wor$ed as ceramics wor$er
#or petitioner A"C3/ #or more than : years. ;pon recommendation
o# his doctor, Cap!lso verbally re*!ested to go on sic$ leave d!e to
bronchial asthma. It appeared that his illness is directly ca!sed by
his job as ceramics wor$er where, #or lac$ o# the prescribed
occ!pational sa#ety gadgets, he inhaled and absorbed harm#!l
ceramic d!sts. +is s!pervisor approved his re*!est. 5ater, Cap!lso
went bac$ to petitioner A"C3/ to res!me his wor$ a#ter rec!perating
#rom his illness. +e was not allowed to do so by his s!pervisor who
in#ormed him that only the owner co!ld allow him to conitn!e his job.
+e ret!rned #ive times to A"C3/ b!t when it became apparent that
he wo!ld not be reinstated, he immediately #iled the instant complaint
#or illegal dismissal. 3n the other hand, petitioners alleged that
Cap!lso was a #ormer employee o# A"C3/ who resigned, as
evidenced by a letter o# resignation, and joined petitioner <ilipinas
Paso, as shown by a contract o# employment4 that Cap!lso allegedly
in#ormed his s!pervisor that he intended to go on terminal leave
beca!se he was not #eeling well4 that he s!bmitted a letter o#
resignation addressed to the President o# <ilipinas Paso4 and that
Cap!lso tried to apply #or wor$ again with <ilipinas Paso b!t there
was no vacancy. Petitioners insist that Cap!lso was not really
dismissed b!t he vol!ntarily resigned #rom A"C3/ and <ilipinas
Paso, and that there was nothing illegal or !n!s!al in the letters o#
resignation he e&ec!ted.
ISSUE: %hether respondent Cap!lso is deemed to have vol!ntarily
resigned.
RULING: (o. )o constit!te a resignation, it m!st be !nconditional
and with the intent to operate as s!ch. )here m!st be an intention to
relin*!ish a portion o# the term o# o##ice accompanied by an act o#
relin*!ishment. In the instant case, the #act that Cap!lso signi#ied
his desire to res!me his wor$ when he went bac$ to petitioner
A"C3/ a#ter rec!perating #rom his illness, and actively p!rs!ed his
case #or illegal dismissal be#ore the labor co!rts when he was
re#!sed admission by his employer, negated any intention on his part
to relin*!ish his job at A"C3/.
404
6e!$o T$a(#i! 8$%" I(,. v. NLRC
284 SCRA 208 [1998]
C. Resignation (Requisites)
FACTS: Private respondent /amon -arcia wor$ed with petitioner
.etro )ransit 3rgani=ation 8.E)/39 as a station teller. -arcia
called !p the o##ice o# .E)/3 and as$ed his immediate s!pervisor,
Carlos 5im!aco, i# he co!ld go on leave o# absence as he was
proceeding to Ceb! to loo$ #or his wi#e and children who s!ddenly
le#t home witho!t his $nowledge. A#ter a #ew wee$s o# #r!itless
search, he ret!rned to .anila. %hen he reported to o##ice, -arcia
was not allowed to res!me wor$ b!t was directed by his section
head to proceed to the legal department o# .E)/3 where he wo!ld
!ndergo investigation. )here he was as$ed by Pili abo!t his
absence and a#ter e&plaining his predicament, Pili c!t short the
in*!iry and in#ormed him right away that it wo!ld be better #or him to
resign rather than be terminated #or his absences. till in a state o#
e&treme agitation and weighed down by a serio!s #amily problem,
-arcia at once prepared a resignation letter. .eanwhile, -arcia
bro!ght the matter o# his #orced resignation be#ore the !nion>s
grievance machinery #or arbitration b!t .E)/3 rejected -arcia>s
plea. +ence, -arcia #iled a complaint #or illegal dismissal.
ISSUE: %hether -arcia may be considered to have resigned #rom
service.
RULING: "#ere is no $alid resignation %#ere it %as made
%it#out proper dis&ernment' su&# as %#en an employee(s
%riting and #anding in of #is resignation letter to #is employer
%ere a knee)*erk rea&tion triggered +y t#at singular moment
%#en #e %as left %it# no alternati$e +ut to a&&ede' #a$ing +een
literally for&ed into it +y +eing presented %it# t#e more
unpleasant fate of +eing terminated. 9 An e&amination o# the
circ!mstances s!rro!nding the s!bmission o# the letter indicates that
the resignation was made witho!t proper discernment so that it co!ld
not have been intelligently and vol!ntarily done. D!ring his
enco!nter with Pili, respondent -arcia as$ed, 0x x x ano ba ang
gagawin ko kasi aalis uli ako, kailangan kong ayusin ang problema
ko x x x sabi n'ya mag-resign ka na lang para hindi ka na ma-
terminate.1 7erily, what Pili did as petitioner>s representative was to
advise -arcia, who at that time was thoro!ghly con#!sed and
bothered no end by a serio!s #amily problem, that he had better
resign or #ace the prospect o# an !nceremonio!s termination #rom
service #or abandonment o# wor$. At that precise moment, the
employee co!ld not be said to have #!lly !nderstood what he was
doing, i.e., writing his resignation letter, nor co!ld have #oreseen the
conse*!ences thereo#, #or it is established that as soon as he came
o!t o# the investigation o##ice he prepared his resignation letter right
then and there at a table nearby with no time #or re#lection. It is
noteworthy that shortly therea#ter he cons!lted his !nion president
#or help regarding his #orced resignation. )his does not indicate by
any means a resignation that was $nowingly and vol!ntarily done.
3n the contrary, it shows that his writing and handing in the
resignation letter to petitioner were a $nee-jer$ reaction triggered by
that sing!lar moment when he was le#t with no alternative b!t to
accede, having been literally #orced into it by being presented with
the more !npleasant #ate o# being terminated.
403
:/ili))i(e ;i$ele##" I(,. v. NLRC
210 SCRA 732 [1999]
C. Resignation (!oluntary Resignation)
FACTS: Petitioner hired respondent Doldwin 5!cila as its
operator?encoder. In the co!rse o# his employment, respondent was
promoted to vario!s positions, i.e., +ead )echnical and .aintenance
Department o# the Engineering Department, !pervisor, )echnical
ervices o# the same department, and #inally as !perintendent,
Project management. 5ater, he tendered his resignation.
!bse*!ently, 5!cila #iled a complaint #or illegal?constr!ctive
dismissal inasm!ch as his promotion #rom !pervisor, )echnical
ervices, to !perintendent, Project .anagement, is demeaning,
ill!sory and h!miliating. )he basis o# his allegation was the #act that
he was not given any secretary, assistant and?or s!bordinates. )he
5abor Arbiter declared 5!cila to have act!ally resigned. )he (5/C,
however, reversed the #indings o# the 5abor Arbiter. +ence, this
petition.
ISSUE: %hether respondent 5!cila was constr!ctively dismissed
#rom petitioner>s employment.
RULING: )he Co!rt has held that constr!ctive dismissal is 0an
invol!ntary resignation resorted to when contin!ed employment is
rendered impossible, !nreasonable or !nli$ely4 when there is a
demotion in ran$ and?or a dimin!tion in pay4 or when a clear
discrimination, insensibility or disdain by an employer becomes
!nbearable to the employee.1 In this partic!lar case, respondent
vol!ntarily resigned #rom his employment. +e was not press!red
into resigning.
7ol!ntary resignation is de#ined as the act o# an employee who 0#inds
himsel# in a sit!ation where he believes that personal reasons cannot
be sacri#iced in #avor o# the e&igency o# the service and he has no
other choice b!t to disassociate himsel# #rom his employment.
/espondent considered his trans#er?promotion as a demotion d!e to
the #act that he had no s!pport sta## to assist him in his wor$ and
whom he co!ld s!pervise. )here is no demotion where there is no
red!ction in position, ran$ or salary as a res!lt o# s!ch trans#er. In
#act, respondent -oldwin 5!cila was promoted three 8@9 times #rom
the time he was hired !ntil his resignation #rom wor$.
407
:a#,a v. NLRC
287 SCRA 334 [1998]
C. Resignation (Voluntary Resignation)
FACTS: )his case emanates #rom the consolidated complaints #or
illegal dismissal #iled by petitioners against respondent )iongsan
!per Ba=aar as represented by its owner .r. +enry 5ao.
Petitioners are all employees o# .r. 5ao in his ba=aar.
)he Case o# 5ilia Pasc!a, 5ilia Pasc!a was employed as a
saleslady assigned at the Pants ection o# the ba=aar. he was
ca!ght by .r. 5ao repairing three pairs o# pants that allegedly were
not bo!ght at the )iongsan !per Ba=aar which was contrary to
respondent>s policy. he was given a warning. Pasc!a did not
report #or wor$ the ne&t day. he opted to resign. /espondent paid
her separation pay.
)he Case o# .imi .acanlalay, Prior to her wor$ at respondent>s
ba=aar, .acanlalay wor$ed #or .rs. )an. %hen .rs. )an went to the
ba=aar and saw .acanlalay wor$ing as a cashier therein, she
in#ormed .r. 5ao that .acanlalay was previo!sly dismissed by her
#or dishonesty. Apprehensive, considering the widescale
!nderpricing pil#erage and deceit which was discovered a month
earlier by .r. 5ao, he do!bted .acanlalay>s honesty and #orthwith
relieved the latter #rom her position as cashier. A!st li$e Pasc!a,
.acanlalay resigned and was paid her separation pay.
)he Case o# !san De Castro, !san De Castro re#!sed to receive
her salary on (ovember BC, BDDB beca!se she insisted on receiving
more than what is indicted in the payrolls. /espondent told her, that
i# she was not satis#ied with her salary, she can #ind employment
elsewhere. he #ailed to report #or wor$ on the #ollowing day. In any
case, respondent states, that, she can be dismissed #or lac$ o# tr!st
and con#idence, #or her involvement in the pil#erage o# goods.
)he Case o# 7ioleta oriano, 7ictoria oriano was reverted bac$ as
a sales lady a#ter a #ew wee$s when .r. 5ao learned, that, she had
some $nowledge o# the schemes o# the resigned employees. .r.
5ao re*!ired her to e&plain in writing why she sho!ld not be the
s!bject matter o# a disciplinary action #or her #ail!re to #ill !p her daily
time record. .r. 5ao ordered another employee to p!t the phrase >no
entry> into oriano>s daily time record. oriano attempted to grab the
daily time record #rom its c!stodian. A commotion ens!ed, in the
presence o# many c!stomers. he was s!spended #or @E days and
event!ally terminated #rom service.
)he Case o# 7ictoria antos, 7ictoria antos was ca!ght charging a
meter o# a cloth #or a price o# a yard. .r. 5ao immediately called her
#or an e&planation. +er e&planation was #o!nd by .r. 5ao to be
!nsatis#actory. he was s!spended #or @E days. he never ret!rned
to wor$ since then.
ISSUE: %hether petitioners may be considered to have vol!ntarily
resigned #rom petitioner>s employment.
RULING: (o. Basic is the doctrine that resignation m!st be
vol!ntary and made with the intention o# relin*!ishing the o##ice,
accompanied with an act o# relin*!ishment. Based on the evidence
on record, we are more than convinced that Petitioners 5ilia Pasc!a,
.imi .acanlalay, !san C. De Castro and 7ioleta oriano did not
vol!ntarily *!it their jobs. /ather, they were #orced to resign or were
s!mmarily dismissed witho!t j!st ca!se. Petitioners F e&cept
7ictoria 5. antos F #orthwith too$ steps to protest their layo## and
th!s cannot, by logic, be said to have abandoned their wor$.
408
<al&e5 v. NLRC
287 SCRA 87 [1998]
C. Resignation (!oluntary Resignation)
FACTS: Petitioner was hired by private respondent as a b!s driver
on a commission basis. %hen the airconditioning !nit o# the b!s
which petitioner was driving s!##ered a mechanical brea$down,
respondent company told him to wait !ntil the same was repaired.
.eanwhile, no other b!s was assigned to petitioner to $eep him
gain#!lly employed. Petitioner contin!ed to report to his employer>s
o##ice #or wor$, only to #ind o!t each time that the airconditioning !nit
had not been repaired. everal months elapsed b!t he was never
called by respondent company to report #or wor$. 5ater, petitioner
#o!nd o!t that the b!s #ormerly driven by him was plying an assigned
ro!te as an ordinary b!s, with a newly-hired driver. Petitioner #iled a
complaint against respondent #or illegal dismissal with money claims.
%hile private respondent admitted that it told petitioner to wait !ntil
the airconditioning !nit o# the b!s was repaired, the latter did not
report #or wor$.
ISSUE: %hether petitioner was considered to have vol!ntarily
resigned.
RULING: (o. )he other allegation o# private respondent that
petitioner vol!ntarily resigned #rom wor$ obvio!sly does not deserve
any consideration. It wo!ld have been illogical #or herein petitioner
to resign and then #ile a complaint #or illegal dismissal. /esignation
is inconsistent with the #iling o# the said complaint.
409
6a(ila B$oa&,a#!i(% Co. v. NLRC
294 SCRA 487 [1998]
C. !alidity of ,oli&y
FACTS, Private respondent am!el Bangloy was prod!ction
s!pervisor and radio commentator o# the D"AC-A. radio station in
5aoag City. )he radio station is owned by petitioner .anila
Broadcasting Company. Bangloy applied #or leave o# absence #or GE
days in order to r!n #or Board .ember in Ilocos (orte. +e made his
application p!rs!ant to ec. BB8b9 o# /.A. (o. HHIH which provides
that, Any mass media olumnist, ommentator, announer, or
personality who is a andidate !or any eleti"e publi o!!ie shall take
a lea"e o! absene !rom his work as suh during the ampaign
period. A#ter a wee$, private respondent>s application was ret!rned
to him together with a copy o# an o##ice memorand!m which stated
that as a matter o# 0company policy,1 any employee who #iles a
certi#icate o# candidacy #or any elective national or local o##ice wo!ld
be considered resigned #rom the company. It wo!ld appear that
Bangloy nonetheless ran in the election b!t lost. +e tried to ret!rn to
wor$ b!t was not allowed to do so by petitioner on the gro!nd that
his employment had been terminated. Bangloy, in his complaint #or
illegal dismissal, *!estioned the validity o# the a#ore-stated company
policy. +e claimed that when he #iled his application #or leave, he
was not aware o# the e&istence o# the said company policy.
ISSUE: %hether an !np!blished company policy s!ch in this case
may be validly applied to the concerned employees.
RULING: (o. "o +e effe&ti$e' an employer must notify its
employee of &ompany poli&ies. F )he ne&t *!estion is whether the
company policy was made $nown to employees be#ore it was so!ght
to be applied to private respondent. <or a r!le may be valid b!t not
e##ective #or lac$ o# p!blication.
)o begin with, petitioner apparently has never seen it #it to p!t the
policy in writing. Petitioner has r!les governing leaves o# employees,
b!t the policy concerning employees who wish to r!n #or p!blic o##ice
hasnever been #ormally embodied in the r!les. As important a r!le
as one which considers an employee who r!ns #or p!blic o##ice
resigned m!st be written and p!blished so as to lend certainty to its
e&istence and de#initeness to its scope. 3therwise, the impression
may be #ostered that the en#orcement o# the policy is discretionary on
the part o# the heads o# the vario!s o##ices and !nits o# the company.
.oreover, s!ch an !nwritten r!le is s!sceptible o# misinterpretation
and is not li$ely to be ta$en serio!sly b those to whom it is
addressed.
In this case the #act that a memorand!m stating the policy in
*!estion had to be iss!ed beca!se o# any in*!iry by Atty. Edgardo
.ontilla, petitioner>s e&ec!tive vice-president and general manager,
tends to show that the policy was not well-$nown even to the ran$ing
o##icials o# the company.
410
G!ie$$e5 v. Si(%e$ Se0i(% 6a,/i(e Co.
411 SCRA 312 [2002]
"ermination of Employment +y Employer
-asis of Rig#t and Requirements
FACTS: Petitioner was initially hired by inger ewing .achine
Company as A!dit Assistant on contract!al basis. +e became an
Acco!nts Chec$er on probationary stat!s and later as Asset A!ditor
on reg!lar stat!s !ntil he was dismissed #rom employment.
Petitioner2s termination is premised on the incidents when he and
three other Asset A!ditors were ca!ght watching a videotape inside
the Asset?5egal Department 3##ice d!ring o##ice ho!rs, and the
alleged posting at the door o# the same o##ice which read 0.aiparit )i
;misbo Ditoy1 8(o ;rinating +ere9 which petitioner admitted to be
his responsibility. Petitioner e&plained to .r. 5eonardo Cons!nji, the
Asset .anager, that he only admitted to the posting o# the sign in
order to ta$e the c!dgels #or a co-employee. +e also e&plained that
their !se o# the video e*!ipment was !pon the orders o# their
s!pervisor to test the *!ality o# their video players. Despite the
recommendation by his s!pervisor that the matter does not deserve
to be devoted with too m!ch time and e##ort as he considered it a
0minor o##ense,1 .r. Cons!nji iss!ed a memo in#orming petitioner o#
his violation o# company r!les and reg!lations and as$ed to e&plain
why the corresponding penalty o# dismissal sho!ld not be sanctioned
against him. Insisting that he had previo!sly verbally e&plained his
side to .r. Cons!nji, no written e&planation was s!bmitted by
petitioner. Another memo was iss!ed by .r. Cons!nji, worded as
#ollows,
#A!ter a thorough in"estigation o! the inident and
a!ter ha"ing !ound your explanations to be
unsatis!atory and due to your re!usal to omply with
my memo to you x x x whih onsitutes will!ul
de!iane or disregard o! Company authority, the
management deems it !itting and proper to impose
upon you the penalty o! dismissal x x x.$
+is motion #or reconsideration having been denied, petitioner #iled a
complaint #or illegal dismissal with claims #or damages.
ISSUE: %hether petitioner was a##orded d!e process by private
respondent.
RULING: 'es. )he re*!irement o# d!e process are satis#ied where
the parties are a##orded #air and reasonable opport!nity to e&plain
their respective sides o# the controversy F 3n this score, we agree
with the Co!rt o# Appeals in #inding that in this case proced!ral d!e
process was not violated by the management. inger has shown
compliance with the two-notice re*!irement F #irst, o# the intention to
dismiss, indicating therein the acts or omissions complained against4
and second, o# the decision to dismiss an employee F and in
between s!ch notices, an opport!nity #or him to answer and reb!t
the charges against him.
Indeed, the re*!irements o# d!e process are satis#ied where the
parties are a##orded #air and reasonable opport!nity to e&plain their
respective sides o# the controversy. )he #acts show that inger had
provided petitions ample opport!nity to e&plain his side in writing,
a#ter he was apprised o# his alleged in#ractions. )hat he deemed his
verbal e&planation s!##icient and opted to #orego a written
e&planation, was a choice he vol!ntarily made and insisted !pon.