You are on page 1of 13

395

Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company v. NLRC


303 SCRA 9
Factors
FACTS
Private respondent, Enrique Gabriel, was employed by petitioner Philippine Long Distance Telephone
Company (PLDT), as a foreman in Dansalan Area 2, M-3. As a supervisor, his territorial responsibility
covered Camp Crames First to 20th Avenues and portions of Project 4, all in Quezon City.
He ordered his men to install telephone units in Shaw Boulevard, Mandaluyong outside his territorial
responsibility. Later on the installation activities were investigated because the Facilities building had no
entrance cable facilities. In the administrative investigation conducted by PLDT private respondent tried to
explain his side to clear certain issues taken against him, adding that his intention in ordering the
installation of the telephone units was to provide customer satisfaction.He submitted his explanation and,
although admitting the responsibility of his actions, reiterated his rationalization that his sole intention was
to serve the customer, thereby earning goodwill for the company.
On September 3, 1990, private respondent was dismissed from employment on the ground that he
committed grave misconduct, breach of trust, and violations of company rules and regulations when he
ordered the unwarranted installation activities. On September 6, 1990, private respondent, as
complainant below filed an illegal dismissal case against herein petitioner, PLDT. On May 3, 1991, the
Labor Arbiter rendered his decision finding the dismissal justified,: the respondent is ordered to pay the
complainant his proportionate 13th month pay for the year 1989. The rest of the claims, including the
complaint for illegal dismissal, are dismissed for lack of merit. The NLRC reversed the decision of Labor
Arbiter. Hence the Appeal.
ISSUE
Whether or Not Gabriel is guilty of serious misconduct and breach of trust?
RULING
The Court held that the existence of a valid cause for dismissal, such as breach of trust by an employee,
nevertheless, dismissal should not be imposed, as it is too severe a penalty if the latter has been
employed for a considerable length of time in the service of his employer. Further, in carrying out and
interpreting the Labor Codes provisions and its implementing regulations, the workingmans welfare
should be the primordial and paramount consideration. This kind of interpretation gives meaning and
substance to the liberal and compassionate spirit of the law as provided for in Article 4 of the New Labor
Code which states that all doubts in the implementation and interpretation of the provisions of the Labor
Code including its implementing rules and regulations shall be resolved in favor of labor'. As a supervisor,
he is required to act judiciously and to exercise his authority in harmony with company policies. When he
jeopardized the status of the rank-and-file employees whom he ordered to by-pass the standard operating
procedures of the company, to the detriment of his employer, he was not entirely blameless. The
irregularity attributable to him could not be entirely disregarded. He must not be further rewarded, in
fairness to the employers own legitimate concerns such as company morale and discipline.
The assailed NLRC Resolution is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Petitioner is directed to reinstate the
private respondent to his position held at the time of the complained dismissal. Petitioner is likewise
ordered to pay private respondent his full backwages including thirteenth month pay due him based on his
last salary, computed from the date of promulgation of the NLRC Resolution on June 29, 1992, until his
actual reinstatement. The other awards of unspecified benefits and proportionate privileges in the said
Resolution are set aside for lack of merit.

396
Cebu Filveeneer Corp. v NLRC
286 SCRA 556
Dismissal as Penalty
FACTS
Jessielyn Villaflor was the chief accountant of petitioner Cebu Filveneer Corporation. Ms. Rhodora M.
Guillermo served as her accounting clerk. The top executives of petitioner corporation were Italians: Mr.
Carlo Cordaro, President; Mr. John Chapman Kun, General Manager; and, Mr. Renato Marinoni,
Production Manager.
Mr. Kun informed Mr. Cordaro of his desire to resign as General Manager, he requested for the liquidation
of his investment in the company in the sum of P125,000.00. Without permission from Mr. Cordaro, Mr.
Kun secured blank check and voucher from Ms. Guillermo .Mr. Kun prepared the check amounting to
P125,000.00 and had it signed by Mr. Marinoni, Ms. Guillermo failed to immediately report the incident to
her superior and Mr. Cordaro. Jessielyn Villaflor upon knowing, reported the matter to Mr. Cordaro, who
ordered the suspension of Mr. Kun and directed Mr. Marinoni and Jessielyn Villaflor to act as the
responsible for the companys fund and assists the company lawyer to file a criminal case against Mr.
Kun. Later on Mr. Marinoni confronted Jessielyn Villaflor and charged her with complicity in Mr. Kuns
irregular disbursements. Later on Jessielyn Villaflor was prevented from entering the companys premises
upon the order of Mr. Maranoni with authority of Mr. Cordaro. The private respondent filed the case of
illegal dismissal against the petitioner. Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of private respondent who was illegally
dismissed. NLRC affirmed the decision of Labor Arbiter.
ISSUE
Whether or not the employer can dismiss an employee as penalty for an omission of duty?
RULING
In labor-management relations, there can be no higher penalty than dismissal from employment.
Dismissal severs employment ties and could well be the economic death sentence of an employee.
Dismissal prejudices the socio-economic well being of the employee's family and threatens the industrial
peace. Due to its far reaching implications, our Labor Code decrees that an employee cannot be
dismissed, except for the most serious causes. In accordance with Art. 279 of the Labor Code, an illegally
dismissed employee is entitled to his full back wages from the time his compensation was withheld from
him ( as a rule , is from the time of his illegal dismissal) up to the time of his reinstatement.
The April 30, 1996 Decision and August 28, 1996 Resolution of the public respondent are affirmed subject
to the modification deleting the award of moral damages and attorney's fees and absolving petitioner
Carlo Cordaro from liability

397
Golden Thread Knitting Industries, Inc. v. NLRC
304 SCRA 568
Dismissal as Penalty
FACTS
From July 16 to September 2, 1992 four (4) separate complaints were filed against petitioners Golden
Thread Knitting Industries, Inc.. George Ng and Wilfredo Bico by their employees for unfair labor
practices, illegal dismissal, ovbertime pay, premium pay, holiday pay and illegal rotation.
Petitioners contended that they resorted to rotation of work, which affected practically all employees
because of the low demand for their towels and shirts. They also avowed that they validly dismissed
some of the employees because they slashed several bundles of towels on July 3, 1992 and the others
position are redundant.
NLRC ruled separately for the complainants hence the appeal.
ISSUE
Whether or not the dismissal as penalty are valid?
RULING
Dismissal is the ultimate penalty that can be meted to an employee. It must therefore be based on a
clear and not on an ambiguous or ambivalent ground. The petitioners exercised their authority to dismiss
without due regard to the pertinent exacting provisions of the Labor Code. The right to terminate should
be utilized with extreme caution because its immediate effect is to put an end to an employee's present
means of livelihood while its distant effect, upon a subsequent finding of illegal dismissal, is just as
pernicious to the employer who will most likely be required to reinstate the subject employee and
grant him full back wages and other benefits.
The award of compensation for ten (10) regular holidays for 1990, 1991 and 1992 by the NLRC is proper.
The dismissed workers distinctly set forth in their Position Paper that they were not remunerated for ten
(10) regular holidays for the years 1990, 1991 and 1992. This claim stands undisputed.
The GOLDEN THREAD KNITTING INDUSTRIES, INC., GEORGE NG and WILFREDO BICO directed
to immediately reinstate private respondents George Macaspac, Mary Ann Macaspac, Romulo Albasin,
Melchor Cachucha, Gilbert Rivera and Flora Balbino to their former positions without loss of seniority
rights and other privileges and with full back wages, inclusive of allowances, and to their other benefits or
their monetary equivalent computed from the time of their dismissal up to actual reinstatement, is
AFFIRMED but with modification as regards private respondent Balbino whose date of termination
should be 12 August 1992, taking into account her one (1) week suspension.
All the rest of the
dispositive portion, particularly the order to petitioners to pay private respondents for ten (10)
regular holidays for 1990, 1991 and 1992; to pay private respondent Balbino her wages for two (2) days
amounting to P236.00; and, to pay private respondents attorney's fees equivalent to ten per cent (10%)
of the total monetary awards, is likewise AFFIRMED.

398
Central Pangasinan Elec. Cooperative v Macaraeg
395 SCRA 720

Dismissal as Penalty
FACTS
Petitioner is an electric cooperative duly organized and existing under Philippine laws. Respondent de
Vera was employed as teller whose primary duty was to accept payments from petitioners consumers in
Bayambang and remit her collections to the cashier, herein co-respondent Geronima Macaraeg whose
duty was to deposit the daily collections of the office to petitioners account.
From January 1998 to January 1999, respondent de Vera accommodated and encashed the crossed
checks of her sister, Evelyn Joy Estrada.Evelyn issued two hundred eleven (211) crossed checks
amounting to P6,945,128.95 payable to petitioner cooperative despite the absence of any transaction to
her, De Vera paid the full value of theses checks from the cash collections of petitioner and the end of the
day, De Vera will turned over the cash and the check to Macaraeg and credited the checks as part of
their collection and deposited the same together with their cash collection to the account of petitioner at
the Rural Bank of Central Pangasinan. Later on Finance Department noticed several check payable to
Petitioner were returned due to insufficiency of fund. In the investigation conducted by the petitioner De
Vera admitted the accommodation made in favour of her sister and Macaraeg admitted that she knew of
the accommodations and she allowed her subordinate to do it because De Vera is her kumare and that
she knew that Mrs. Estradas checks are sufficiently funded On March 10, 1999 Macaraeg and De Vera
was terminated on the basis of the findings of the investigation.
The respondents question their dismissal and voluntary arbitrator ruled in their favor for the employer
failure to comply with grievance procedure and to reinstate the respondents to their former positions
without loss or seniority of rights. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision Voluntary Arbiter.
ISSUE
Whether the respondents were validly dismissed?
RULING
To constitute a valid dismissal from employment, two requisites must be met, namely: (1) it must be for a
just or authorized cause, and (2) the employee must be afforded due process. 1[5]
The Supreme Court held that there exist a valid reason to dismiss both employees. Article 282(c) of the
Labor Code allows an employer to dismiss employees for willful breach of trust or loss of confidence. 2[6]
Proof beyond reasonable doubt of their misconduct is not required, it being sufficient that there is some
basis for the same or that the employer has reasonable ground to believe that they are responsible for the
misconduct and their participation therein rendered them unworthy of the trust and confidence demanded
of their position.

1
2

399
Philips Semiconductors etc. vs Fadriquela
427 SCRA 408
Dismissal as Penalty
FACTS
Eloisa Fadriquela has a Contract of Employment with the petitioner in which she was hired as a
production operator with a daily salary of P118. Her initial contract was for a period of three months up to
August 8, 1992, but was extended for two months when she garnered a performance rating of 3.15. Her
contract was again renewed for two months or up to December 16, 1992, when she received a
performance rating of 3.8. After the expiration of her third contract, it was extended anew, for three
months, that is, from January 4, 1993 to April 4, 1993.
After garnering a performance rating of 3.4, the respondents contract was extended for another three
months, that is, from April 5, 1993 to June 4, 1993. She, however, incurred five absences in the month of
April, three absences in the month of May and four absences in the month of June. Line supervisor
Shirley F. Velayo asked the respondent why she incurred the said absences, but the latter failed to explain
her side. The respondent was warned that if she offered no valid justification for her absences, Velayo
would have no other recourse but to recommend the non-renewal of her contract. The respondent still
failed to respond, as a consequence of which her performance rating declined to 2.8. Velayo
recommended to the petitioner that the respondent employment be terminated due to habitual
absenteeism, in accordance with the Company Rules and Regulations. Thus, the respondents contract of
employment was no longer renewed.
LA: dismissed complaint for lack of merit
NLRC: affirmed LA decision and holding that the respondent was a contractual employee whose period
of employment was fixed in the successive contracts of employment she had executed with the petitioner.
Thus, upon the expiration of her contract, the respondents employment automatically ceased. The
respondents employment was not terminated; neither was she dismissed.
CA: reversed LA and NLRC decision
ISSUE
Whether or not the Fadriquela was dismissed? Was the dismissal valid?
RULING
YES. The Supreme Court agreed with the appellate court that Fadriquela was dismissed by the petitioner
without the requisite notice and without any formal investigation. Given the factual milieu in this case, the
respondent?s dismissal from employment for incurring five (5) absences in April 1993, three (3) absences
in May 1993 and four (4) absences in June 1993, even if true, is too harsh a penalty.
NO. The dismissal is illegal because, first, she was dismissed in the absence of a just cause, and
second, she was not afforded procedural due process

400
Salvador v. Philippine Mining Services Corp.
395 SCRA 729
Managerial and Rank File Employees
FACTS
Petitioner Jose V. Salvador is a foreman and Shift Boss of Philippine Mining Services Corp. He was
employed from 1981 up to 1997. Philippine Mining Service Corp. is engaged in exporting quality dolomite
ore for use in the manufacture of steel, glass and Fertilizer.
Sawa, Assistant Resident Manager on his way back to office , saw petitioner operating respondents
payloader, scooping fine ore from the stockpile and loading it on his private car. It was contrary to the
standard operating procedure for the plant foreman to operate the payloader. Upon checking of the driver
of Sawa, the delivery receipt showed that it was dolomite spillage that was purchased by buyer Ondo
Alcantara, not the fine ore he saw petitioner loading on his truck. In a show-cause letter, 3[6] dated
September 30, 1997, respondent formally charged petitioner with the following: (1) doing personal or
unofficial work on company time using respondents equipment and materials; (2) defrauding the
respondent by loading fine ore, instead of dolomite spillage; and (3) breach of trust and confidence
reposed on him by respondent. Salvador contended that Sawa relied only in circumstantial evidence in
concluding that what was loaded on the truck and released by the guards was fine ore and not spillage.
On November 7, 1997, respondent found petitioner guilty of fraud, serious misconduct, breach of trust
and confidence, violation of the companys rules and regulations and violation of his contractual
obligations with respondent company. Petitioners services were terminated. Salvador filed a complaint
for illegal dismissal against the respondent. The Labor Arbiter ordered for the Separation pay, No
backwages were awarded as the labor arbiter noted that petitioner committed indiscretions amounting to
gross neglect of duty which rendered him undeserving of the benefit. The NLRC upheld the illegal
dismissal and ordered the reinstatement and full backwages. The Court of Appeals reversed the decision
of NLRC.
ISSUE
Whether or not a Manager rank employees can be validly dismissed on the ground of breach of trust and
loss of confidence?
RULING
The Court held that Salavador committed an act of dishonesty and pilferage to the prejudice of his
employer which resulted in respondents loss of confidence in him. Unlike other just causes for dismissal,
trust in an employee, once lost is difficult, if not impossible, to regain. Moreover, petitioner was not an
ordinary rank-and-file employee. He occupied a high position of responsibility. As foreman and shift boss,
he had over-all control of the care, supervision and operations of respondents entire plant. In the case
at bar, respondent has every right to dismiss petitioner, a managerial employee, for breach of trust and
loss of confidence as a measure of self-preservation against acts patently inimical to its interests. Indeed,
in cases of this nature, the fact that petitioner has been employed with the respondent for a long time, if to
be considered at all, should be taken against him, as his act of pilferage reflects a regrettable lack of
loyalty which he should have strengthened, instead of betrayed.

401
Caoile v NLRC
299 SCRA 76
Managerial and Rank File Employees
FACTS
Alejandro Caoile was employed by Private respondent Coca Cola Bottlers Philippines, as an Electrician
Data Processing Supervisor in its Zamboanga Plant but was later dimissed on the ground of loss of trust
and confidence for his involvement in the anomalous encashment of check payments to a contractor.
Contesting the ground for his dismissal, petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and money claims
against private respondents CCBPI and its officers, Rene P. Horrileno, the Plant Manager, and Noriel B.
Enriquez, the Plant Finance Manager. Pettioner allegedly appropriated for himself the payment
supposedly for the contractor in various cash advances and full payment of the contractor.When he was
asked by Mr De Guzman the contractor, complainant replied that it was for the higher ups as arranged by
Mr. Arthur Soldevilla, an alleged partner of Mr. De Guzman. On Sept. 4, 1992, Mr. De Guzman executed
an affidavit exposing the fraudulent acts perpetrated by the petitioner, which prompted the company to
conduct an investigation. He was suspended and later on was terminated on the basis of the result of the
investigation. Caoile filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. Labor Arbiter ruled in his favor hence the
appeal to the NLRC. NLRC reversed the decision and held that petitioner committed as constituting a
breach of trust and confidence thereby justifying his dismissal.
ISSUE
Whether or not the termination was valid?
RULING
Law and jurisprudence have long recognized the right of employers to dismiss employees by reason of
loss of trust and confidence. As provided for in the Labor Code, "Art. 282. An employer may terminate an
employment for any of the following causes: Fraud or willful breach of the trust reposed in him by his
employer or his duly authorized representative.In the case of supervisors or personnel occupying
positions of responsibility, Court has repeatedly held that loss of trust and confidence justifies
termination. Obviously, as a just cause provided by law, this ground for terminating employment, springs
from the voluntary or willful act of the employee, or "by reason of some blameworthy act or omission on
the part of the employee".
Petitioner is not an ordinary rank-and-file employee. He is the EDP Supervisor tasked to directly
supervise the installation of the PABX housewiring project in respondent company's premises. He should
have realized that such sensitive position requires the full trust and confidence of his employer. Corollary,
he ought to know that his job requires that he keep the trust and confidence bestowed on him by his
employer unsullied. Breaching that trust and confidence, for example, by pocketing money as "kickback"
for himself in the course of the implementation of the project under his supervision could only mean
dismissal from employment. For, regrettably, while petitioner vehemently denies having obtained money
from the contractor, the evidence on record proves otherwise.

402
Habana v NLRC
298 SCRA 537
Managerial and Rank File Employees
FACTS
On 16 March 1989, Antonio Habana was hired by Hotel Nikko Manila Garden as Rooms Division
Director. As Rooms Division Director, petitioner was tasked with the management and supervision of the
Front Office, GRO, Concierge, Reservations, Roomskeeping, Housekeeping and Telephone Exchange to
ensure high standard of service. In the course of his employment, however, petitioner encountered
several difficulties, among which was his failure to unite and control his managerial staff. In particular,
petitioner had several conflicts with his Senior Rooms Manager, Dolores Samson. Yokoo issued a
memorandum expressing concern over the dispute between petitioner and his managerial staff in the
Rooms Division. Mr. Yokoo stressed the importance of good teamwork and urged petitioner to take
responsibility for the unhealthy situation and to immediately carry out corrective measures. Otherwise,
management may be compelled to intervene and take action. However, on 2 May 1990, petitioner went
to the Hotels Comptroller, Mr. Ernesto Rosales asking for his severance pay of P120,000.00 plus accrued
benefits in the amount of P11,865.28, for a total of P131,865.28. The check was prepared but before it
was released, petitioner was asked to submit a letter of resignation pursuant to hotel policy. Petitioner
dictated the contents of his resignation letter to Mr. Rosales secretary who prepared the same. After the
letter was finished, petitioner signed it and submitted it to Mr. Rosales who, in turn, gave the check to
petitioner. Petitioner, likewise, executed an Affidavit of Quitclaim in favor of Hotel Nikko. Consequently,
on 17 May 1990, petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and damages against Hotel Nikko and its
officers Masakasu Tsuruoka, Masao Yokoo and Tamiyasu Okawa.
On 23 September 1994, Labor Arbiter Manuel R. Caday dismissed the complaint.
findings of Labor Arbiter Caday.

NLRC affirmed the

ISSUE
Whether or not Habana was illegally dimissed?
RULING
The supreme Court held that the petitioner are not ordinary laborer or rank-and-file personnel who may
not be able to completely comprehend and realize the consequences of their acts. The petitioner are
managerial employee holding responsible positions. Voluntary resignation is defined as the voluntary act
of an employee who finds himself in a situation where he believes that personal reasons cannot be
sacrificed in favor of the exigency of the service and he has no other choice but to dissassociate himself
from his employement Petitioner could not have been intimidated by private respondents to quit. . His
excuse is, thus, unbelievable and unjustifiable. It is clear that the petitioner is the one who approached
Rosales to ask for his separation pay. Rosales, the hotels Comptroller requirement of petitioner to submit
a resignation letter before his separation pay was released did not militate against the voluntariness of
his resignation. Petitioner readily acceded and was the one who dictated the contents of the said letter to
Mr. Rosales secretary who typed the same and he showed neither resistance nor protest when he
submitted his letter of resignation.
Finally, the timing of petitioners letter of protest, which he sent to private respondents just after he
received the check for his severance pay on 3 May 1990, arouses suspicion of bad faith. He wanted to
exact something more from private respondents despite his voluntary resignation and acceptance of a
huge amount of separation pay.

403
AZCOR Manufacturing Inc. vs NLRC
303 SCRA 26
Requisites
FACTS
Candido Capulso filed with the Labor Arbiter a complaint for illegal dismissal and illegal deduction of
P50.00 per day for the period of April to September 1989. The Petitioner moved to dimiss the complaint
on the ground that there was no employer-employee relationship between Capulso and Azcorn.The
evidence presented by Capulso showed that he worked for AZCOR as ceramics worker for more than two
(2) years and receiving daily wages of P118.00 and from Apri, to Sept. 1989 the amount of P50.00 was
deducted from his salary without informing him of the reason therefor. AZCOR contended that Capulso
was a former employee as evidenced by a letter of resignation and joined Filipinas Paso on March 1,
1990 as shown by Contract of employment.The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of merit but
ordered AZCIR to refund TO Capulso the sum of P200.00 representing the amount illegally deducted
from his salary. The NLRC reversed the decision of Labor Arbiter, declaring the dismissal illegal, ordering
the reinstatement and payment of backwages.
ISSUE
Whether it is correct to hold AZCOR, and FILIPINAS PASO and Arturo Zuluaga jointly and solidarily liable
for illegal dismissal of Capulso?
RULING
The Supreme Court held that in this particular case, there was much confusion as to the identity of
Capulsos employer whether it was AZCOR or Filipinas Paso, Capulso had no knowledge that he was
already working under petitioner Filipinas PASO since he continued to retain his AZCOR Identification
card, Second, his payslips contained the name of AZCOR giving the impression that AZCOR was paying
his salary , Third he was paid the same salary for the same kind of job, same work area, location and
tools, Fourth, there was no gap in his employment and the alleged Contract with Filipinas Paso was
signed by AZCOR officer.
In fine, we see in the totality of the evidence a veiled attempt by petitioners to deprive Capulso of what he
had earned through hard labor by taking advantage of his low level of education and confusing him as to
who really was his true employer - such a callous and despicable treatment of a worker who had rendered
faithful service to their company.
However, considering that private respondent died during the pendency of the case before this Court,
reinstatement is no longer feasible. In lieu thereof, separation pay shall be awarded. With respect to the
amount of back wages, it shall be computed from the time of private respondents illegal dismissal up to
the time of his deat
The petition is DISMISSED. The NLRC Decision of 12 September 1994 is MODIFIED. Petitioners
AZCOR MANUFACTURING, INC., FILIPINAS PASO and ARTURO ZULUAGA are ORDERED to pay,
jointly and solidarily, the heirs of private respondent Candido Capulso the amounts representing his back
wages, inclusive of allowances and other benefits, and separation pay to be computed in accordance with
law.

404
Metro Transit Organization Inc. V NLRC
284 SCRA 308
Requisites
FACTS
Private respondent Ramon M. Garcia started working with petitioner Metro Transit Organization (METRO)
as a station teller in November 1984. On 22 April 1992 he called up the office of METRO and asked his
immediate supervisor Carlos Limuaco if he could go on leave of absence as he was proceeding to Cebu
to look for his wife and children who suddenly left home without his knowledge. After a few weeks of
fruitless search he returned to Manila. When he reported to the office on May 15, 1992 Garcia was not
allowed to resume work but was directed by his section Head, Felix Leyson to Legal Department for he
will undergo investigation. He was asked by Noel Pili why he was absent from work, after explaining Pili
told him that it would be better if he will resign rather than be terminated for his absences. Garcia
resigned and the company approved his resignation.
Later on Garcia filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The petitioner contended that Garcia absented from
work without official leave because he was establishing his own business. Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of
Garcia and ordered the reinstatement and payment of back wages. NLRC affirmed the decision of Labor
Arbiter.
ISSUE
Whether or not the resignation of Garcia was voluntary?
RULING
The Supreme Court held that Garcia has no intention to resign, he was persuaded by the Legal
Department. If his intention is to resign he should have prepared it before reporting to work on that day.
Notably, t was only after Garcia met with Investigating Officer Noel Pili to explain the reason for his
absence that he wrote a resignation letter as prompted by Pili. The resignation was clearly an offshoot of
that fateful meeting. The voluntariness of complaint's resignation can hardly be believed if he was not
forced by circumstances due to the following: First he was already in the employ of respondent for
almost eight (8) years with a high paying job and benefits; Second, no offense or violation has been
attributed to the complainant during his period of employment; Third, the filing of this instant complaint by
the complainant for illegal dismissal negates or is inconsistent with abandonment and voluntary
resignation. Lastly, there is no iota of evidence that complainant is indeed engaged in business, and
belies the contents of his resignation.
Evidently the complainant was asked to make a choice whether to tender his resignation or be terminated
for his absences which to our mind is anchored on justifiable grounds. Such compulsion to make an
unnecessary choice placed undue and unjustifiable pressure on the employee who otherwise would not
have thought of leaving his position as Station Teller if he had not been induced to do so. This being the
case, the resignation filed by the complainant did not become effective. i[6]

405
Philippine Wireless Inc. V NLRC
310 SCRA 653

Voluntary Resignation
FACTS

On January 8, 1976, petitioner Philippine Wireless Inc. hired respondent Doldwin Lucila as
operator/encoder. On January 7, 1979, he was promoted as Head Technical and Maintenance
Department of the Engineering Department. On September 11, 1987, he was promoted as Supervisor,
Technical Services of the same department. On October 1, 1990, he was again promoted as
Superintendent, Project Management. On December 28, 1990, he tendered his resignation.
On December 3, 1991, he filed with the Arbitration Branch, National Labor Relations Commission, a
complaint for illegal/constructive dismissal. He alleged that he was constructively dismissed inasmuch as
his promotion from Supervisor, Technical Services to Superintendent, Project Management is demeaning,
illusory and humiliating. The basis of his allegation was the fact that he was not given any secretary,
assistant and/or subordinates.
On June 29, 1992, Labor Arbiter Benigno Villarente Jr. rendered a decision declaring that respondent
actually resigned and dismissed the complaint for lack of merit.
On June 15, 1993, public respondent NLRC reversed the findings of the labor arbiter, and ordered
respondents reinstatement with back wages or separation pay.
On August 27, 1993, petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration which the National Labor Relations
Commission denied for lack of merit in a resolution dated November 16, 1993.
ISSUE
Whether or not petitioner was constructively dismissed from the petitioners employment?
RULING
The Court has held that constructive dismissal is an involuntary resignation resorted to when continued
employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely; when there is a demotion in rank and/or a
diminution in pay; or when a clear discrimination, insensibility or disdain by an employer becomes
unbearable to the employee. In this particular case, respondent voluntarily resigned from his
employment. He was not pressured into resigning. Voluntary resignation is defined as the act of an
employee who finds himself in a situation where he believes that personal reasons cannot be
sacrificed in favor of the exigency of the service and he has no other choice but to disassociate himself
from his employment. Respondent considered his transfer/promotion as a demotion due to the fact that
he had no support staff to assist him in his work and whom he could supervise. There is no demotion
where there is no reduction in position, rank or salary as a result of such transfer. ii[6] In fact, respondent
Goldwin Lucila was promoted three (3) times from the time he was hired until his resignation from work.

406
Pascua v NLRC
287 SCRA 554
Voluntary Resignation

FACTS
The complainants Lily Pascua, Macanlalay, Victoria Santos, Susan De Castro and Violeta Soriano filed a
complaint against their employeer Henry Lai of Tiongson Super Bazaar. They resigned from work
because of different violations committed by them as per the standard of their employer. Lily Pascua
caught repairing 3 pairs of pants that allegedly not bought to Tiongson Super Bazaar (she resigned and
paid separation pay), Victoria Santos was caught charging a meter of cloth for the price of a yard (for this
offense she was suspended for 30 days) Mimi Macanlalay and Violeta Soriano were previously assigned
as cashiers but because of their alleged dishonesty they were relieved from their positions. Mimi
Macanlalay resigned and Violeta Soriano was terminated on the ground of of insubordination.
Later on they filed a complaint before a Labor Arbiter for illegal dismissal, separation pay, and back
wages. The labor Arbiter held complainant Lily Pascua, voluntarily resigned. Victoria Santos is found not
to have been dismissed. Violeta Sorianos dismissal is declared to be just cause. Susan De Castro is
found not to have been dismissed. The NLRC affirmed the decision of Labor Arbiter.
ISSUE
Whether or not petitioners voluntarily resigned?
RULING
The supreme Court ruled in favour of the Petitioners. The Court is convinced that the answer is No.
First. Basic is the doctrine that resignation must be voluntary and made with the intention of relinquishing
the office, accompanied with an act of relinquishment. Based on the evidence on record, the Court was
convinced that Petitioners Lilia Pascua, Mimi Macanlalay, Susan C. De Castro and Violeta Soriano did not
voluntarily quit their jobs. Rather, they were forced to resign or were summarily dismissed without just
cause. Petitioners -- except Victoria L. Santos -- forthwith took steps to protest their layoff and thus
cannot, by any logic, be said to have abandoned their work.
Second. In labor cases, the employer has the burden of proving that the dismissal was for a just cause;
failure to show this, as in the instant case, would necessarily mean that the dismissal was unjustified and,
therefore, illegal. To allow an employer to dismiss an employee based on mere allegations and
generalities would place the employee at the mercy of his employer; and the right to security of tenure,
which this Court is bound to protect, would be unduly emasculated.
Third. Under the Labor Code, as amended, the dismissal of an employee which the employer must
validate has a twofold requirement: one is substantive, the other procedural. Not only must the dismissal
be for a just or an authorized cause as provided by law (Articles 282, 283 and 284 of the Labor Code, the
rudimentary requirements of due process -- the opportunity to be heard and to defend oneself -- must be
observed as well.
Fourth. Petitioners Pascua and Macanlalays acceptance of separation pay did not necessarily amount to
estoppel; nor did it connote a waiver of their right to press for reinstatement, considering that such
acceptance -- particularly by Petitioner Pascua who had to feed her four children-- was due to dire
financial necessity.

i
ii