ISSUES

THIRD ISSUE: (BELATED FILING OF COMPLAINT FOR ILLEGAL DISMISSAL)

Steins Gate Construction Inc. (SGCI) should not be liable for illegal dismissal.

From the foregoing facts, it is clear that the defiling of the complainant for illegal
dismissal was belated. Anna Delvey (employee), belatedly filed a complaint for illegal Dismissal against
Steins Gate Construction Inc. (SGCI) (employer) on September 5, 2022, one year after her voluntary
resignation. On the other hand, the resignation of Anna Delvey was voluntary. The contents of her
resignation letter and exit interview form, emphasized her gratitude and a search for a greener pasture
The contents of her resignation letter and exit interview form, emphasized her gratitude and a search
for a greener pasture.

In the case of Ariola vs. Pilipino Star, the prescriptive period for filing an illegal
dismissal complaint is four years from the time the cause of action accrued. This four-year
prescriptive period, not the three-year period for filing money claims under Article 291 of
the Labor Code, applies to claims for backwages and damages due to illegal dismissal. But on
contrary, Labor Arbiter Fatima Jambaro-Franco decided the case. At the outset, she ruled
that laches had set in, emphasizing that Arriola took three years and one day to file his
complaint. According to the Labor Arbiter, this was "contrary to the immediate and natural
reaction of an aggrieved person." If Arriola were indeed aggrieved, he would not have
waited three years and one day to sue Pilipino Star Ngayon, Inc.

Furthermore, pursuant to Article 300 of Presidential Decree 442 (Labor Code of

the Philippines), as amended and renumbered, "An employee may terminate without just
cause the employer-employee relationship by serving a written notice on the employer at
least one (1) month in advance. xxx" On the other hand, dismissal is involuntary on the part
of the employee as it connotes termination of employment initiated by the employer on
account of just or authorized cause provided under Articles 297-299 of the Labor Code of
the Philippines. Based on their nature alone, resignation and illegal dismissal are
incompatible. As such, an employee who voluntarily resigns from work and files a complaint
later on for illegal dismissal will have no legal ground to stand on.

This is also in accordance with the ruling in the case of Susan M. Bance, et al. v.
University of Saint Anthony and Santiago Ortega, Jr., GR 202724, Feb. 3, 2021, where the
Supreme Court speaking through Associate Justice Ramon Paul Hernando stated that:

"Resignation is the formal pronouncement or relinquishment of a

position or office. It is the voluntary act of an employee who is in a situation
where he believes that personal reasons cannot be sacrificed in favor of the
exigency of the service, and he has then no other choice but to disassociate
himself from employment. The intent to relinquish must concur with the overt
act of relinquishment; hence, the acts of the employee before and after the
alleged resignation must be considered in determining whether he in fact
intended to terminate his employment. In illegal dismissal cases, it is a
fundamental rule that when an employer interposes the defense of
resignation, on him necessarily rests the burden to prove that the employee
indeed voluntarily resigned.”'

"xxx The Court holds that petitioners' voluntary resignation effectively rendered
their complaints for illegal dismissal without any basis. Central Azucarera De Bais, Inc. v.
Siason discusses the concept of resignation:
Based on the above-quoted decision, the employer-employee
relationship will be severed when an employee voluntarily resigns from his
or her work, or when he believes that personal reasons cannot be sacrificed
in favor of the exigency of the service. To determine the intent of the
employee to terminate the relation, his or her acts before and after the
alleged resignation will be considered. Further, the voluntariness of the act
will be confirmed. If both are present, the resignation of the employee will
effectively render the subsequent complaint for illegal dismissal without
any basis.
 Furthermore, in the case of Panasonic Marketing Philippines Incorporation v.
John Peckson, the Court disagrees with the finding of the CA that Panasonic failed to prove
that Peckson resigned out of his own volition and without any outside influence from the
company. As such, since Peckson resigned willingly, Panasonic was not guilty of the
constructive dismissal filed by Peckson.

In the case of Anna Delvey, the intention to resign is clear. Nonetheless, the
voluntariness of the act may be questioned depending on the underlying facts. If you are
resigning simply to avoid being terminated due to the implication in an offense or
humiliation against your colleagues in the company, then your act could be considered as
voluntary. In essence, Steins Gate Construction Inc. (SGCI) argues that the facts show the
completely voluntary nature attendant to Anna Delvey’s resignation, and that the filing of a
complaint for illegal dismissal was merely an afterthought. According to Steins Gate
Construction Inc. (SGCI), the circumstances likewise provide the true state of mind of Anna
Delvey at the time of her resignation, buoyed by his pleasant relationship with the
colleagues of the company.

Moreover, in the case of PLDT v. Pingol, respondent Pingol never made any
written extrajudicial demand. Thus, the claimed "follow-ups" could not have validly tolled
the running of the prescriptive period. It is worthy to note that respondent never presented
any proof to substantiate his allegation of follow-ups. Applying the Doctrine of Laches, the
court ruled that respondent Pingol has no one but himself to blame for his own
predicament. By his own allegations in his complaint, he has barred his remedy and
extinguished his right of action. Although the Constitution is committed to the policy of
social justice and the protection of the working class, it does not necessary follow that every
labor dispute will be automatically decided in favor of labor. The management also has its
own rights. Out of Its concern for the less privileged in life, this Court, has more often than
not inclined, to uphold the cause of the worker in his conflict with the employer. Such
leaning, however, does not blind the Court to the rule that justice is in every case for the
deserving, to be dispensed in the light of the established facts and applicable law and
doctrine.
 Taken cumulatively and guided with legal concepts, negate any indication that
Anna Delvey never seeks relief and follow-ups during those prescriptive period. Moreover,
she did not assert under any duress when she resigned, contrary to her assertions. Thus,
Anna Delvey’s resignation was voluntary. Because of the same, Steins Gate Construction Inc.
(SGCI) cannot be held guilty of illegal dismissal.