Labor Full Txt Cases

8/13/2019 Labor Full Txt Cases

1/28

GOMA vs. Pamplona Plantation

DECISIONNACHURA,J.:

For review is the Decision[1]of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated August 27, 2! granting respondent"a#plona "lantation, $nc%s petition for certiorari and its &esolution[2] dated 'ove#er 11, 2!dening petitioner *ienvenido +o#as #otion for reconsideration, in CA+%&% -" 'o% 7./02%

"etitioner co##enced[!]the instant suit filing a co#plaint for illegal dis#issal, underpa#ent ofwages, nonpa#ent of pre#iu# pa for holida and rest da, five () das incentive leave pa,da#ages and attornes fees, against the respondent% he case was filed with the -u&egionalAritration *ranch 'o% 3$$ of Du#aguete Cit% "etitioner clai#ed that he wor4ed as a carpenter at the5acienda "a#plona since 1006 that he wor4ed fro# 7! a%#% to 12 noon and fro# 1 p%#% to p%#% dail with a salar rate of "0% a da paid wee4l6 and that he wor4ed continuousl until1007 when he was not given an wor4 assign#ent% [.]8n a clai# that he was a regular e#ploee,

petitioner alleged to have een illegall dis#issed when the respondent refused without 9ust cause togive hi# wor4 assign#ent% hus, he praed for ac4wages, salar differential, service incentive leave

pa, da#ages and attornes fees%[]

8n the other hand, respondent denied having hired the petitioner as its regular e#ploee% $t insteadargued that petitioner was hired a certain Anto Caaveral, the #anager of the hacienda at the ti#eit was owned :r% *ower and leased :anuel +on;ales, a 9aialai pelotari 4nown as eisure Corporation ("">C) was created for the operation of touristresorts, hotels and ars% "etitioner, thus, rendered service in the construction of the facilities of "">C%$f at all, petitioner was a pro9ect ut not a regular e#ploee%[7]

8n ?une 2/, 1000, >aor Ariter +eoffre "% 3illaher#osa dis#issed the case for lac4 of #erit% [/]he>aor Ariter concluded that petitioner was hired the for#er owner, hence, was not an e#ploee ofthe respondent% Conse@uentl, his #one clai#s were denied% [0]

8n appeal to the 'ational >aor &elations Co##ission ('>&C), the petitioner otained favorale

9udg#ent when the triunal reversed and set aside the >aor Ariters decision% he dispositive portionof the '>&C decision reads

5B&BF8&B, the Decision of the >aor Ariter is here -B A-$DBand a new one is here issued 8&DB&$'+ the respondent, "a#plona"lantation $ncorporated, the following1) to reinstate the co#plainant, *$B'3B'$D8 D% +8:A to his for#er

position i##ediatel without loss of seniorit rights and other privileges62) to pa the sa#e co#plainant B>3B 58-A'D 5&BB5'D&BD F$F


2/28

(1E) of the total 9udg#ent award%he respondent is further ordered to pa the aggregate a#ount of 8'B5'D&BD F8&BB' 58-A'D A'D '$'BBB' "B-8-("11.,10%) to the co#plainant through the cashier of this Co##issionwithin ten (1) das fro# receipt hereof%-8 8&DB&BD%[1]

&espondents #otion for reconsideration was denied the '>&C on -epte#er 0, 22%[11]

cralawhe '>&C upheld the eistence of an e#ploere#ploee relationship, ratiocinating that it wasdifficult to elieve that a si#ple carpenter fro# far awa "a#plona would go to Du#aguete Cit tohire a co#petent lawer to help hi# secure 9ustice if he did not elieve that his right as a laorer had

een violated%[12]$t added that the creation of the "">C re@uired the tre#endous tas4 of constructinghotels, inns, restaurants, ars, outi@ues and service shops, thus involving etensive carpentr wor4%As an old carpentr hand in the old corporation, the possiilit of petitioners e#plo#ent was great%[1!]

he '>&C li4ewise held that the respondent should have presented its e#plo#ent records if onlto show that petitioner was not included in its list of e#ploees6 its failure to do so was fatal% [1.]

Considering that petitioner wor4ed for the respondent for a period of two ears, he was a regulare#ploee%[1]

cralawAggrieved, respondent instituted a special civil action for certiorariunder &ule = efore theCourt of Appeals which granted the sa#e6 and conse@uentl annulled and set aside the '>&Cdecision% he CA disposed, as follows

cralawWHEREFORE, pre#ises considered, the instant petition isGRANTED. he assailed decision of the '>&C dated 8ctoer 2., 2, aswell as the &esolution dated -epte#er 0, 22 in '>&C Case 'o% 3

//200, &A* 3$$//0/D are here ANNUED an! SETASIDE.he co#plaint is ordered DISMISSED.cralaw-8 8&DB&BD%[1=]

Contrar to the '>&Cs finding, the CA concluded that there was no e#ploere#ploee relationship%he CA stressed that petitioner having raised a positive aver#ent, had the urden of proving theeistence of an e#ploere#ploee relationship% &espondent, therefore, had no oligation to prove itsnegative aver#ent%[17]he appellate court further held that while the respondents usiness re@uired the

perfor#ance of occasional repairs and carpentr wor4, the retention of a carpenter in its paroll wasnot necessar or desirale in the conduct of its usual usiness% [1/]>astl, although the petitioner was ane#ploee of the for#er owner of the hacienda, the respondent was not re@uired to asor suche#ploees ecause e#plo#ent contracts are in personam and inding onl etween the parties%[10]

"etitioner now co#es efore this Court raising the sole issue

5B5B& 8& '8 5B DBC$-$8' 8F [5B] C8& 8F A""BA>-DABD A+- 27, 2!, &B3B&-$'+ A'D -B$'+ A-$DB 5B

'>&C (Fourth Division, Ceu Cit) &>$'+ 5A 5B "B$$8'B&A- '8 $>>B+A>>< D$-:$--BD A- 5B A- '8 A' B:">8


3/28

cralaw"etitioner insists that he was a regular e#ploee of the respondent corporation% he respondent,on the other hand, counters that it did not hire the petitioner, hence, he was never an e#ploee, #uchless a regular one%*oth the >aor Ariter and the CA concluded that there was no e#ploere#ploee relationship

etween the petitioner and respondent% he ased their conclusion on the alleged ad#ission of thepetitioner that he was previousl hired the for#er owner of the hacienda% hus, the rationali;edthat since the respondent was not oliged to asor all the e#ploees of the for#er owner, petitionersclai# of e#plo#ent could not e sustained% he '>&C, on the other hand, upheld petitioners clai#of regular e#plo#ent ecause of the respondents failure to present its e#plo#ent records%he eistence of an e#ploere#ploee relationship involves a @uestion of fact which is well withinthe province of the CA to deter#ine% 'onetheless, given the realit that the CAs findings are at oddswith those of the '>&C, the Court is constrained to proe into the attendant circu#stances asappearing on record%[21]

cralawA thorough ea#ination of the records co#pels this Court to reach a conclusion different fro#that of the CA% $t is true that petitioner ad#itted having een e#ploed the for#er owner prior to100! or efore the respondent too4 over the ownership and #anage#ent of the plantation, however,he li4ewise alleged having een hired the respondent as a carpenter in 100 and having wor4ed assuch for two ears until 1007% 'otal, at the outset, respondent categoricall denied that it hired the

petitioner% C and the herein respondent, are one and the sa#e%* setting forth these defenses, respondent, in effect, ad#itted that petitioner wor4ed for it, aleit in adifferent capacit% -uch an allegation is in the nature of a negative pregnant, a denial pregnant withthe ad#ission of the sustantial facts in the pleadings responded to which are not s@uarel denied, and


4/28

a#ounts to an ac4nowledg#ent that petitioner was indeed e#ploed respondent%[2=]

he e#plo#ent relationship having een estalished, the net @uestion we #ust answer is $s the

petitioner a regular or pro9ect e#ploeeGe find the petitioner to e a regular e#ploee%Article 2/ of the >aor Code, as a#ended, provides

ART. "#$. REGUAR AND CASUA EMPO%MENT. & heprovisions of written agree#ent to the contrar notwithstanding andregardless of the oral agree#ent of the parties, an e#plo#ent shall edee#ed to e regular where the e#ploee has een engaged to perfor#activities which are usuall necessar or desirale in the usual usiness ortrade of the e#ploer, ecept where the e#plo#ent has een fied for aspecific pro9ect or underta4ing, the co#pletion or ter#ination of which has

een deter#ined at the ti#e of the engage#ent of the e#ploee or where

the wor4 or service to e perfor#ed is seasonal in nature and thee#plo#ent is for the duration of the season%An e#plo#ent shall e dee#ed to e casual if it is not covered the

preceding paragraph Provided, hat, an e#ploee who has rendered atleast one ear of service, whether such service is continuous or ro4en,shall e considered a regular e#ploee with respect to the activit in whichhe is e#ploed and his e#plo#ent shall continue while such activiteists%

As can e gleaned fro# this provision, there are two 4inds of regular e#ploees, na#el (1) thosewho are engaged to perfor# activities which are usuall necessar or desirale in the usual usiness

or trade of the e#ploer6 and (2) those who have rendered at least one ear of service, whethercontinuous or ro4en, with respect to the activit in which the are e#ploed% [27] -i#pl stated,regular e#ploees are classified into regular e#ploees nature of wor46 and regular e#ploees ears of service% he for#er refers to those e#ploees who perfor# a particular activit which isnecessar or desirale in the usual usiness or trade of the e#ploer, regardless of their length ofservice6 while the latter refers to those e#ploees who have een perfor#ing the 9o, regardless of thenature thereof, for at least a ear% [2/]$f the e#ploee has een perfor#ing the 9o for at least one ear,even if the perfor#ance is not continuous or #erel inter#ittent, the law dee#s the repeated andcontinuing need for its perfor#ance as sufficient evidence of the necessit, if not indispensailit, ofthat activit to the usiness%[20]

&espondent is engaged in the #anage#ent of the "a#plona "lantation as well as in the operation of

tourist resorts, hotels, inns, restaurants, etc% "etitioner, on the other hand, was engaged to perfor#carpentr wor4% 5is services were needed for a period of two ears until such ti#e that the respondentdecided not to give hi# wor4 assign#ent an#ore% 8wing to his length of service, petitioner eca#ea regular e#ploee, operation of law%&espondent argues that, even assu#ing that petitioner can e considered an e#ploee, he cannot eclassified as a regular e#ploee, ut #erel as a pro9ect e#ploee whose services were hired onlwith respect to a specific 9o and onl while that specific 9o eisted%A pro9ect e#ploee is assigned to carr out a specific pro9ect or underta4ing the duration and scope ofwhich are specified at the ti#e the e#ploee is engaged in the pro9ect% A pro9ect is a 9o orunderta4ing which is distinct, separate and identifiale fro# the usual or regular underta4ings of theco#pan% A pro9ect e#ploee is assigned to a pro9ect which egins and ends at deter#ined ordeter#inale ti#es%[!]


5/28

cralawhe principal test used to deter#ine whether e#ploees are pro9ect e#ploees as distinguishedfro# regular e#ploees, is whether or not the e#ploees were assigned to carr out a specific pro9ector underta4ing, the duration or scope of which was specified at the ti#e the e#ploees were engagedfor that pro9ect%[!1]$n this case, apart fro# respondents are allegation that petitioner was a pro9ecte#ploee, it had not shown that petitioner was infor#ed that he would e assigned to a specific

pro9ect or underta4ing% 'either was it estalished that he was infor#ed of the duration and scope ofsuch pro9ect or underta4ing at the ti#e of his engage#ent%

cralaw:ost i#portant of all, ased on the records, respondent did not report the ter#ination ofpetitioners supposed pro9ect e#plo#ent to the Depart#ent of >aor and B#plo#ent (D8>B)%Depart#ent 8rder 'o% 10 (as well as the old "olic $nstructions 'o% 2) re@uires e#ploers to su#ita report of an e#ploees ter#ination to the nearest pulic e#plo#ent office ever ti#e thee#plo#ent is ter#inated due to a co#pletion of a pro9ect% &espondents failure to file ter#inationreports, particularl on the cessation of petitioners e#plo#ent, was an indication that the petitionerwas not a pro9ect ut a regular e#ploee%[!2]

cralawe stress herein that the law overrides such conditions which are pre9udicial to the interest ofthe wor4er whose wea4 argaining position necessitates the succor of the -tate% hat deter#ineswhether a certain e#plo#ent is regular or otherwise is not the will or word of the e#ploer, to whichthe wor4er oftenti#es ac@uiesces% 'either is it the procedure of hiring the e#ploee nor the #anner of

paing the salar or the actual ti#e spent at wor4% $t is the character of the activities perfor#ed thee#ploer in relation to the particular trade or usiness of the e#ploer, ta4ing into account all thecircu#stances, including the length of ti#e of its perfor#ance and its continued eistence% +iven theattendant circu#stances in the case at ar, it is ovious that one ear after he was e#ploed therespondent, petitioner eca#e a regular e#ploee operation of law%[!!]

As to the @uestion of whether petitioner was illegall dis#issed, we answer in the affir#ative%

cralawellestalished is the rule that regular e#ploees en9o securit of tenure and the can onle dis#issed for 9ust cause and with due process, i.e., after notice and hearing% $n cases involving ane#ploees dis#issal, the urden is on the e#ploer to prove that the dis#issal was legal% his urdenwas not a#pl discharged the respondent in this case%8viousl, petitioners dis#issal was not ased on an of the 9ust or authori;ed causes enu#eratedunder Articles 2/2,[!.] 2/![!] and 2/.[!=]of the >aor Code, as a#ended% After wor4ing for therespondent for a period of two ears, petitioner was shoc4ed to find out that he was not given anwor4 assign#ent an#ore% 5ence, the re@uire#ent of sustantive due process was not co#plied with%cralawApart fro# the re@uire#ent that the dis#issal of an e#ploee e ased on an of the 9ust orauthori;ed causes, the procedure laid down in *oo4 3$, &ule $, -ection 2 (d) of the Omnibus Rules

Implementing the Labor Code, #ust e followed%[!7]Failure to oserve the rules is a violation of thee#ploees right to procedural due process%cralaw$n view of the nonoservance of oth sustantive and procedural due process, in accordancewith the guidelines outlined this Court in Agabon v. National Labor Relations Commission, [!/]wedeclare that petitioners dis#issal fro# e#plo#ent is illegal% [!0]

cralaw5aving shown that petitioner is a regular e#ploee and that his dis#issal was illegal, we now discussthe propriet of the #onetar clai#s of the petitioner% An illegall dis#issed e#ploee is entitled to(1) either reinstate#ent, if viale, or separation pa if reinstate#ent is no longer viale, and (2)

ac4wages%[.]

$n the instant case, we are prepared to concede the i#possiilit of the reinstate#ent of petitionerconsidering that his position or an e@uivalent position #a no longer e availale in view of thelength of ti#e that this case has een pending% :oreover, the protracted litigation #a have seriousl


6/28

araded the relationship of the parties so as to render reinstate#ent i#practical% Accordingl,petitioner #a e awarded separation pa in lieu of reinstate#ent%[.1]

"etitioners separation pa is pegged at the a#ount e@uivalent to petitioners one (1) #onth pa, or onehalf (1H2) #onth pa for ever ear of service, whichever is higher, rec4oned fro# his first da ofe#plo#ent up to finalit of this decision% Full ac4wages, on the other hand, should e co#putedfro# the date of his illegal dis#issal until the finalit of this decision%8n petitioners entitle#ent to attornes fees, we #ust ta4e into account the fact that petitioner wasillegall dis#issed fro# his e#plo#ent and that his wages and other enefits were withheld fro#hi# without an valid and legal asis% As a conse@uence, he was co#pelled to file an action for therecover of his lawful wages and other enefits and, in the process, incurred epenses% 8n these

ases, the Court finds that he is entitled to attornes fees e@uivalent to ten percent (1E) of the#onetar award%[.2]

>astl, we affir# the '>&Cs award of salar differential% $n light of our foregoing dis@uisition on theillegalit of petitioners dis#issal, and our adoption of the '>&Cs findings, suffice it to state that such

issue is a @uestion of fact, and we find no cogent reason to distur the findings of the laor triunal%WHEREFORE, pre#ises considered, the petition is GRANTED% he Decision of the Court ofAppeals dated August 27, 2! and its &esolution dated 'ove#er 11, 2! in CA+%&% -" 'o%7./02 are RE'ERSEDand SET ASIDE% "etitioner is found to have een illegall dis#issed fro#e#plo#ent and thus, is ENTITEDto 1) -alar Differential e#odied in the '>&C decision dated8ctoer 2., 2 in '>&C Case 'o% 3//2006 2) -eparation "a6 !) *ac4wages6 and .)Attornes fees e@uivalent to ten percent (1E) of the #onetar awards% pon finalit of this

9udg#ent, let the records of the case e re#anded to the '>&C for the co#putation of the eacta#ounts due the petitioner%SO ORDERED%

(G.R. No. )*)""+, -l )/, "$$#0

GREGORIO S. SA1EROA, PETITIONER, 'S. RONAD SUARE2 AND RA%MUNDOIRASAN, R., RESPONDENTS.

D E C I S I O N

NACHURA, .:

*efore the Court is a petition for review on certiorariunder &ule . of the &ules of Court assailing

the Decision[1]

dated :arch !, 21 and the &esolution[2]

dated 'ove#er 2!, 21 of the Court ofAppeals (CA) in CA+%&% -" 'o% =!%

The Facts

he case ste##ed fro# a Co#plaint [!]for illegal dis#issal with #one clai#s filed on 'ove#er 1,1007 respondents against petitioner efore the &egional Aritration *ranch of Davao Cit%"etitioner is the owner and #anager of +%-% -aerola Blectrical -ervices, a fir# engaged in theconstruction usiness speciali;ing in installing electrical devices in sudivision ho#es and inco##ercial and nonco##ercial uildings% &espondents were e#ploed petitioner as electricians%he wor4ed fro# :onda to -aturda and, occasionall, on -undas, with a dail wage of "11%%

&espondent &onald -uare; (-uare;) was e#ploed petitioner fro# Feruar 100 until 8ctoer10076 while respondent &a#undo >irasan, ?r% (>irasan) wor4ed fro# Feruar 100 until -epte#er


7/28

1007%[.]&espondent >irasan alleged that he was dis#issed without cause and due process% 5e was#erel infor#ed petitioner that his services were no longer needed without an eplanation whhe was ter#inated% *oth respondents clai#ed that the received co#pensation elow the #ini#u#wage% he were given a fied rate of "11% while the #andated #ini#u# wage was "1!%, perage 8rder 'o% issued the &egional ripartite and "roductivit *oard of &egion $% he alsoalleged that the did not receive 1!th#onth pa for the entire period of their e#plo#ent% [] *othli4ewise clai#ed pa#ent of overti#e and service incentive leave%

$n his defense, petitioner averred that respondents were partti#e pro9ect e#ploees and weree#ploed onl when there were electrical 9os to e done in a particular housing unit contracted

petitioner% 5e #aintained that the services of respondents as pro9ect e#ploees were coter#inous witheach pro9ect% As pro9ect e#ploees, the ti#e of rendition of their services was not fied% hus, therewas no practical wa of deter#ining the appropriate co#pensation of the value of respondentsIacco#plish#ent, as their wor4 assign#ent varied depending on the needs of a specific pro9ect% [=]

8n -epte#er 2., 100/, the >aor Ariter rendered a Decision [7]dis#issing the co#plaint for lac4 of#erit% he >aor Ariter ruled that respondents were pro9ect e#ploees and were not entitled to their

#onetar clai#s%

8n appeal, the 'ational >aor &elations Co##ission ('>&C) affir#ed with #odification thefindings of the >aor Ariter in a &esolution[/]dated ?ul 0, 1000% $t #aintained that respondents were

pro9ect e#ploees of petitioner% 5owever, it declared that respondent -uare; was illegall dis#issedfro# e#plo#ent% $t also awarded the #onetar clai#s of respondents% he dispositive portion of the&esolution reads

5B&BF8&B, foregoing considered, the decision on appeal is here :8D$F$BD declaringco#plainant &8'A>D -A&BJ illegall dis#issed and directing respondent to pa thefollowing(cut)

A%-8 8&DB&BD%[0]

"etitioner filed a #otion for reconsideration% 8n 8ctoer 20, 1000, the '>&C issued a &esolution [1]

dening the sa#e% A detailed co#putation of the #one clai#s awarded to respondents wasincorporated in the &esolution, su##ari;ed as follows(cut)

"etitioner filed a petition for certiorari under &ule = of the &ules of Court efore the CA% "etitionerasserted that the '>&C co##itted grave ause of discretion when it declared hi# guilt of illegallter#inating respondent -uare; and in awarding oth respondents their #onetar clai#s%

8n :arch !, 21, the CA rendered a Decision [12]dis#issing the petition for lac4 of #erit% "etitionerfiled a #otion for reconsideration which, however, was denied in a &esolution [1!]dated 'ove#er 2!,

21% 5ence, this petition%

The Issues

"etitioner su#its the following issues for resolution (1) whether respondent -uare; was illegallter#inated, and (2) whether respondents are entitled to their #onetar clai#s%

The Ruling of the Court

"etitionerIs usiness, speciali;ing in installing electrical devices, needs electricians onl when thereare electrical devices to e installed in sudivision ho#es or uildings covered an appropriatecontract% "etitioner, as an electrical contractor, depends for his usiness on the contracts that he is aleto otain fro# real estate developers and uilders of uildings% hus, the wor4 provided petitionerdepends on the availailit of such contracts or pro9ects% he duration of the e#plo#ent of his wor4


8/28

force is not per#anent ut coter#inous with the pro9ects to which the wor4ers are assigned% 3iewed inthis contet, the respondents are considered as pro9ect e#ploees of petitioner% $ndeed, the status ofrespondents as pro9ect e#ploees was upheld the Court of Appeals ased on the findings of factsof the >aor Ariter and the '>&C%

A pro9ect e#ploee is one whose Ke#plo#ent has een fied for a specific pro9ect or underta4ing,the co#pletion or ter#ination of which has een deter#ined at the ti#e of the engage#ent of thee#ploee or where the wor4 or service to e perfor#ed is seasonal in nature and the e#plo#ent isfor the duration of the season%K[1.]

5owever, respondents, even if wor4ing as pro9ect e#ploees, en9o securit of tenure% -ection !,Article $$$, of the Constitution guarantees the right of wor4ers to securit of tenure, and ecause ofthis, an e#ploee #a onl e ter#inated for 9ust [1]or authori;ed[1=]causes that #ust co#pl with thedue process re@uire#ents[17]#andated law%

$n Archbuild asters and Construction, Inc. v. NLRC,[1/]we held that the e#plo#ent of a pro9ectwor4er hired for a specific phase of a construction pro9ect is understood to e coter#inous with the

co#pletion of such phase and not upon the acco#plish#ent of the whole pro9ect% A wor4er hired for aparticular phase of a construction pro9ect can e dis#issed upon the co#pletion of such phase% "ro9ectwor4ers in the construction industr #a also e ter#inated as the phase of a construction pro9ectdraws nearer to co#pletion when their services are no longer needed, provided the are not replaced%[10]

'onetheless, when a pro9ect e#ploee is dis#issed, such dis#issal #ust still co#pl with thesustantive and procedural re@uire#ents of due process% er#ination of his e#plo#ent #ust e for alawful cause and #ust e done in a #anner which affords hi# the proper notice and hearing% [2]

$n this regard, we hold that respondent -uare; was illegall ter#inated petitioner% A pro9ecte#ploee #ust e furnished a written notice of his i#pending dis#issal and #ust e given theopportunit to dispute the legalit of his re#oval% [21]$n ter#ination cases, the urden of proof rests onthe e#ploer to show that the dis#issal was for a 9ust or authori;ed cause% B#ploers who hire

pro9ect e#ploees are #andated to state and prove the actual asis for the e#ploeeIs dis#issal onceits veracit is challenged%[22]

"etitioner failed to present an evidence to disprove the clai# of illegal dis#issal% $t was uncontestedthat the last wor4 of the respondents with petitionerIs co#pan was the electrical installation in so#ehousing units at the Ciudad Bsperan;a 5ousing "ro9ect% 'o evidence was presented petitioner toshow the ter#ination of the pro9ect which would 9ustif the cessation of the wor4 of respondents%

'either was there proof that petitioner co#plied with the sustantive and procedural re@uire#ents ofdue process%

As to respondentsI #onetar clai#s, we uphold the findings of the '>&C% As e#ploer, the petitionerhas the urden of proving that the rate of pa given to the respondents is in accordance with the#ini#u# fied the law and that he paid thirteenth #onth pa, service incentive leave pa andother #onetar clai#s%

e have consistentl held that as a rule, one who pleads pa#ent has the urden of proving it% Bvenwhen the plaintiff alleges nonpa#ent, still the general rule is that the urden rests on the defendantto prove pa#ent, rather than on the plaintiff to prove nonpa#ent% he detor has the urden ofshowing with legal certaint that the oligation has een discharged pa#ent% hen the eistenceof a det is full estalished the evidence contained in the record, the urden of proving that it has

een etinguished pa#ent devolves upon the detor who invo4es such a defense against the clai#

of the creditor% hen the detor introduces so#e evidence of pa#ent, the urden of going forwardwith the evidence as distinct fro# the general urden of proof shifts to the creditor, who is then


9/28

under a dut of producing so#e evidence to show nonpa#ent%[2!]

$n the instant case, the urden of proving pa#ent of the #onetar clai#s rests on petitioner, eingthe e#ploer of respondents% his is ecause the pertinent personnel files, parolls, records,re#ittances and other si#ilar docu#ents that would show that the clai#s have een paid are not in the

possession of the wor4er ut in the custod and asolute control of the e#ploer%

[2.]

-adl, thepetitioner failed to do so%

WHEREFORE, in lieu of the foregoing, the instant petition is DENIED. he assailed Decision and&esolution of the Court of Appeals in CA+%&% -" 'o% =! are here AFFIRMED%

SO ORDERED%

G.R. No. )#/34" : Nov5m657 )*, "$)$MIENNIUM ERECTORS CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. 'IRGIIOMAGAANES,Respondent.D E C I S I O N

CARPIO MORAES,J.:&espondent 3irgilio :agallanes started wor4ing in 10// as a utilit #an for >aurencito iu(iu), Chief Becutive 8fficer of :illenniu# Brectors Corporation (petitioner), iuLs fa#il,and Menneth Construction Corporation% 5e was assigned to different construction pro9ectsunderta4en petitioner in :etro :anila, the last of which was for a uilding in >iis, Nue;onCit% $n ?ul of 2. he was told not to report for wor4 an#ore allegedl due to old age,

pro#pting hi# to file on August =, 2. an illegal dis#issal co#plaint[1] efore the >aorAriter%$n its "osition "aper,[2] petitioner clai#ed that respondent was a pro9ect e#ploee who# ithired for a uilding pro9ect in >iis on ?anuar !, 2!, to prove which it su#itted thee#plo#ent contract[!] signed hi#6 that on August !, 2., respondentLs services wereter#inated as the pro9ect was nearing co#pletion6 and he was given financial assistance[.] inthe a#ount of "2,, for which he signed a @uitclai# and waiver%[] "etitioner li4ewisesu#itted a ter#ination report to the Depart#ent of >aor and B#plo#ent (D8>B) datedAugust 17, 2.%&eutting respondentLs clai# that he was e#ploed since 10//, petitioner contended that it wasincorporated onl in Feruar 2, and Menneth Construction Corporation which wasestalished in 10/0 and dissolved in 2, was a separate and distinct entit%* Decision[=] of 'ove#er 2, 2, the >aor Ariter ruled in favor of petitioner anddis#issed the co#plaint, holding that respondent 4new of the nature of his e#plo#ent as a

pro9ect e#ploee, he having eecuted an e#plo#ent contract specifing therein the na#e ofand duration of the pro9ect fro# ?anuar 2! until its co#pletion6 and that the services ofrespondent were ter#inated due to the co#pletion of the pro9ect as shown the ter#ination

report su#itted to the D8>B% he >aor Ariter noted that respondent ad#itted having eenassigned to several uilding pro9ects and that he failed to give pertinent details of his dis#issalO such as who ter#inated hi#, when he was ter#inated, and what were the PovertQ acts leadingto his dis#issal%8n appeal, the 'ational >aor &elations Co##ission ('>&C) set aside the >aor AriterLsDecision[7] of Feruar =, 27 holding that respondent was a regular, not a pro9ect e#ploee,as the e#plo#ent contract he supposedl signed contained the date of co##ence#ent ut nota specific date when it would end, contrar to the rule that the duration and scope of si#ilarcontracts should e clearl set forth therein6 and that ased on the parolls[/] petitionersu#itted and contrar to its clai# that respondent was hired in ?anuar 2!, he had eene#ploed in 21, not 2!, lending weight to his clai# that he had wor4ed for petitioner for1= ears prior to the filing of his co#plaint%

he '>&C thus concluded that while respondentLs wor4 as a utilit #an #a not have eennecessar or desirale in the usual usiness of petitioner as a construction co#pan, that he


10/28

perfor#ed the sa#e functions continuousl for 1= ears converted an otherwise casuale#plo#ent to regular e#plo#ent, hence, his ter#ination without 9ust or authori;ed causea#ounted to illegal dis#issal%"etitioner #oved for reconsideration of the '>&C decision, contending that respondentLs#otion for reconsideration which it treated as an appeal was not perfected, it having een

elatedl filed6 that there was no state#ent of the date of receipt of the appealed decision6 andthat it lac4ed verification and copies thereof were not furnished the adverse parties%"etitionerLs #otion was denied%he Court of Appeals, to which petitioner appealed, affir#ed the '>&CLs ruling Decision[0] of April 11, 2/% "etitionerLs #otion for reconsideration having een denied &esolution[1] of August 2/, 2/, it filed the present petition for review%"etitioner contends that the >aor AriterLs Decision dis#issing the co#plaint had eco#efinal and eecutor following respondentLs failure to perfect his appeal, #aintaining that there@uire#ents for perfection of an appeal and for proof of service are not #ere rules oftechnicalit which #a easil e set aside%he petition fails%he '>&C did not err in treating respondentLs #otion for reconsideration as an appeal, the

presence of so#e procedural flaws including the lac4 of verification and proof of servicenotwithstanding%In la6o7 8as5s, 7-l5s o9 p7o85!-75 so-l! not 65 appli5! in a v577i;i! an! t58ni8al s5ns5. he are #erel tools designed tofacilitate the attain#ent of 9ustice, and where their strict applicationwould result in the frustration rather than pro#otion of sustantial

9ustice, technicalities #ust e avoided. T58ni8aliti5s so-l! not 65p57mitt5! to stan! in t5 -sti85 sall 65 65tt57 s57v5!, t5 appli8ationo9 t58ni8al 7-l5s o9 p7o85!-75 ma 65 75la?5!%[11] (e#phasissupplied)

&especting the lac4 of verification,Pac!uing v. Coca"Cola Philippines, Inc.[12]instructsAs to t5 !5958tiv5 v57i9i8ation in t5 app5al m5mo7an!-m659o75 t5 NRC, t5 sam5 li657alit appli5s. A9t57 all, t575=-i75m5nt 75;a7!in; v57i9i8ation o9 a pl5a!in; is 9o7mal, not

>-7is!i8tional% -uch re@uire#ent is si#pl a condition affecting thefor# of pleading, the nonco#pliance of which does not necessarilrender the pleading fatall defective% 3erification is si#pl intendedto secure an assurance that the allegations in the pleading are trueand correct and not the product of the i#agination or a #atter ofspeculation, and that the pleading is filed in good faith% he court ortriunal #a order the correction of the pleading if verification islac4ing or act on the pleading although it is not verified, if the

attending circu#stances are such that strict co#pliance with the rules#a e dispensed with in order that the ends of 9ustice #a there

e served% (e#phasis supplied) As for the re@uire#ent on proof of service, it #a also e dispensed with since in appealsin laor cases, nonservice of cop of the appeal or appeal #e#orandu# to the adverse part isnot a 9urisdictional defect which calls for the dis#issal of the appeal%[1!]

8n the #erits of the case, the Court finds that, indeed, respondent was a regular, not apro9ect e#ploee%#aberola v. #uare$[1.] reiterates the wellsettled definition of Ppro9ect e#ploee,Q vi$

A pro9ect e#ploee is one whose K5mplom5nt as 655n 9i?5! 9o7 asp58i9i8 p7o>58t o7 -n!57ta@in;, t5 8ompl5tion o7 t57mination o9


11/28

(e#phasis and underscoring supplied)And%!uipment Technical #ervices v. Court o& Appeals[1]e#phasi;es the difference etweena regular e#ploee and a pro9ect e#ploee

As the Court has consistentl held, the s57vi85 o9 p7o>58t 5mplo55sa75 8ot57min-s (sic0 58tand #a e ter#inated uponthe end or co#pletion of that pro9ect or pro9ect phase for which thewere hired% R5;-la7 5mplo55s, in 8ont7ast, 5n>o s58-7it o9t5n-75and are entitled to hold on to their wor4 or position until theirservices are ter#inated an of the #odes recogni;ed under the>aor Code% (e#phasis and underscoring supplied)

"etitionerLs various parolls dating as earl as 21 show that respondent had eene#ploed it% As aptl oserved the appellate court, these docu#ents, rather thansustaining petitionerLs argu#ent, onl serve to support respondentLs contention that he had

een e#ploed in various pro9ects, if not for 1= ears, at the ver least two ears prior to hisdis#issal%Assu#ing arguendo that petitioner hired respondent initiall on a per pro9ect asis, hiscontinued rehiring, as shown the sa#ple parolls converted his status to that of a regular

e#ploee% Following Cocomangas 'each (otel Resort v. )isca,[1=] the repeated andcontinuing need for respondentLs services is sufficient evidence of the necessit, if notindispensailit, of his services to petitionerIs usiness and, as a regular e#ploee, he couldonl e dis#issed fro# e#plo#ent for a 9ust or authori;ed cause%"etitioner having failed to discharge its urden of proving that it ter#inated the services ofrespondent for cause and with due process, the challenged decision #ust re#ain%WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED%SO ORDERED

a8-5sta vs. ADMU

DECISION

QUISUMBING, J.:

his petition for review on certiorari assails the D58ision ()0 dated 8ctoer 12, 21 of theCourt of Appeals in CA+%&% -" 'o% =117! and its R5sol-tion ("0 dated Feruar 21, 22,dening the #otion for reconsideration% he appellate court affir#ed the Decision (30 datedFeruar 2., 2 of the 'ational >aor &elations Co##ission ('>&C), which had reversedthe Decision dated :arch 2, 100/ of the >aor Ariter%he facts are undisputed%&espondent Ateneo de niversit (Ateneo) hired, on a contractual asis, petitioner >olita &%>acuesta as a partti#e lecturer in its Bnglish Depart#ent for the second se#ester of schoolear 10//10/0% -he was rehired, still on a contractual asis, for the first and second se#estersof school ear 10/0100%8n ?ul 1!, 100, the petitioner was first appointed as fullti#e instructor on proation, in thesa#e depart#ent effective ?une 1, 100 until :arch !1, 1001% hereafter, her contract asfacult on proation was renewed effective April 1, 1001 until :arch !1, 1002% -he was againhired for a third ear effective April 1, 1002 until :arch !1, 100!% During these three ears shewas on proation status%$n a letter dated ?anuar 27, 100!, respondent Dr% >eovino :a% +arcia, Dean of AteneoIs+raduate -chool and College of Arts and -ciences, notified petitioner that her contract wouldno longer e renewed ecause she did not integrate well with the Bnglish Depart#ent%"etitioner then appealed to the "resident of the Ateneo at the ti#e, Fr% ?oa@uin *ernas, -%?%$n a letter dated Feruar 11, 100!, Fr% *ernas eplained to petitioner that she was not eing

ter#inated, ut her contract would si#pl epire% 5e also stated that the universit president#a4es a per#anent appoint#ent onl upon reco##endation of the Dean and confir#ation of


12/28

the Co##ittee on Facult &an4 and "er#anent Appoint#ent% 5e added that an appoint#enthe #ight etend would e tanta#ount to a #idnight appoint#ent%$n another letter dated :arch 11, 100!, Fr% *ernas offered petitioner the 9o as oo4 editor inthe niversit "ress under ter#s co#parale to that of a facult #e#er%8n :arch 2=, 100!, petitioner applied for clearance to collect her final salar as instructor%"etitioner also signed a Nuitclai#, Discharge and &elease on April 1=, 100!% (/0"etitioner wor4ed as editor in the niversit "ress fro# April 1, 100! to :arch !1, 100.including an etension of two #onths after her contract epired% pon epir of her contract,

petitioner applied for clearance to collect her final salar as editor% >ater, she agreed to etendher contract fro# ?une 1=, 100. to 8ctoer !1, 100.% "etitioner decided not to have hercontract renewed due to a severe ac4 prole#% -he did not report ac4 to wor4, ut shesu#itted her clearance on Feruar 2, 100%8n Dece#er 2!, 100=, petitioner filed a co#plaint for illegal dis#issal with praer forreinstate#ent, ac4 wages, and #oral and ee#plar da#ages% Dr% >eovino :a% +arcia and Dr%:ari9o &ui; were sued in their official capacities as the previous and present deans of theCollege of Arts and -ciences, respectivel%>aor Ariter :anuel "% Asuncion held that petitioner #a not e ter#inated #ere lapse of

the proationar period ut onl for 9ust cause or failure to #eet the e#ploerIs standards%:oreover, said the >aor Ariter, the @uitclai#, discharge and release eecuted petitionerwas not a ar to filing a co#plaint for illegal dis#issal% (*0hus, he ordered reinstate#ent with

pa#ent of full ac4 wages%he '>&C upon appeal of respondents reversed the >aor AriterIs decision and ruled that

petitioner was not illegall dis#issed, and that her @uitclai# was valid% "etitioner soughtreconsideration ut it was denied% -he then filed a petition for certiorari efore the Court ofAppeals assailing the '>&C decision% he appellate court dis#issed the petition saing therewas no grave ause of discretion and affir#ed the '>&C decision% $t ruled

WHEREFORE , the petition is here enie and accordinglDISMISSED%

5ence, this instant petition where petitioner assigns the following as errors

1% he Court of Appeals erred in ruling that it is the :anual of&egulations For "rivate -chools, not the >aor Code, that deter#inesthe ac@uisition of regular or per#anent status of facult #e#ers inan educational institution62% he Court of Appeals erred in upholding the Nuitclai# that wassigned the "etitioner and in ta4ing that against her clai#s forillegal dis#issal and for #oral and ee#plar da#ages against therespondents%

-i#pl put, the issue in this case is whether the petitioner was illegall dis#issed%"etitioner contends that Articles 2/ and 2/1 of the >aor Code, (#0 not the :anual of&egulations for "rivate -chools, is the applicale law to deter#ine whether or not an e#ploeein an educational institution has ac@uired regular or per#anent status% -he argues that (1) under

Article 2/1, proationar e#plo#ent shall not eceed si (=) #onths fro# date ofe#plo#ent unless a longer period had een stipulated an apprenticeship agree#ent6 (2)under Article 2/, if the apprenticeship agree#ent stipulates a period longer than one ear andthe e#ploee rendered at least one ear of service, whether continuous or ro4en, thee#ploee shall e considered as regular e#ploee with respect to the activit in which he ise#ploed while such activit eists6 and (!) it is with #ore reason that petitioner e #aderegular since she had rendered services as partti#e and fullti#e Bnglish teacher for four and ahalf ears, services which are necessar and desirale to the usual usiness of Ateneo% (0Further#ore, the petitioner contends that her clearance was granted and co#pleted onl aftershe signed the @uitclai# on April 1=, 100!% -he contends also that the respondents failed toshow that her @uitclai# was voluntar%&espondents, for their part, contend that the :anual of &egulations for "rivate -chools iscontrolling% $n the :anual, fullti#e teachers who have rendered three consecutive ears ofsatisfactor service shall e considered per#anent% &espondents also clai# that the petitioner


13/28

was not ter#inated ut her e#plo#ent contract epired at the end of the proationar period%Further, institutions of higher learning, such as respondent Ateneo, en9o the freedo# to choosewho #a teach according to its standards% &espondents also argue that the @uitclai#, dischargeand release petitioner is inding and should ar her co#plaint for illegal dis#issal%After considering the contentions of the parties in the light of the circu#stances in this case, wefind for respondents%he :anual of &egulations for "rivate -chools, and not the >aor Code, deter#ines whether ornot a facult #e#er in an educational institution has attained regular or per#anent status% ()$0$n *niversity o& #anto Tomas v. National Labor Relations Commission the Court en banc saidthat under "olic $nstructions 'o% 11 issued the Depart#ent of >aor and B#plo#ent, Ithe

proationar e#plo#ent of professors, instructors and teachers shall e su9ect to thestandards estalished the Depart#ent of Bducation and Culture% -aid standards aree#odied in paragraph 7 ())0 (now -ection 0!) of the :anual of &egulations for "rivate-chools% ()"0-ection 0! ()30of the 1002 :anual of &egulations for "rivate -chools provides that fullti#eteachers who have satisfactoril co#pleted their proationar period shall e consideredregular or per#anent% ()/0:oreover, for those teaching in the tertiar level, the proationar

period shall not e #ore than si consecutive regular se#esters of satisfactor service% ()*0here@uisites to ac@uire per#anent e#plo#ent, or securit of tenure, are (1) the teacher is a fullti#e teacher6 (2) the teacher #ust have rendered three consecutive ears of service6 and (!)such service #ust have een satisfactor% ()40As previousl held, a partti#e teacher cannot ac@uire per#anent status% ()+08nl when onehas served as a fullti#e teacher can he ac@uire per#anent or regular status% he petitioner wasa partti#e lecturer efore she was appointed as a fullti#e instructor on proation% As a partti#e lecturer, her e#plo#ent as such had ended when her contract epired% hus, the threese#esters she served as partti#e lecturer could not e credited to her in co#puting the nu#erof ears she has served to @ualif her for per#anent status%"etitioner posits that after co#pleting the threeear proation with an aoveaverage

perfor#ance, she alread ac@uired per#anent status% 8n this point, we are unale to agree with

petitioner%Co#pleting the proation period does not auto#aticall @ualif her to eco#e a per#anente#ploee of the universit% "etitioner could onl @ualif to eco#e a per#anent e#ploeeupon fulfilling the reasonale standards for per#anent e#plo#ent as facult #e#er% ()#0Consistent with acade#ic freedo# and constitutional autono#, an institution of higherlearning has the prerogative to provide standards for its teachers and deter#ine whether thesestandards have een #et% ()0At the end of the proation period, the decision to rehire ane#ploee on proation, elongs to the universit as the e#ploer alone%e reiterate, however, that proationar e#ploees en9o securit of tenure, ut onl withinthe period of proation% >i4ewise, an e#ploee on proation can onl e dis#issed for 9ustcause or when he fails to @ualif as a regular e#ploee in accordance with the reasonalestandards #ade 4nown the e#ploer at the ti#e of his hiring% pon epiration of their

contract of e#plo#ent, acade#ic personnel on proation cannot auto#aticall clai# securitof tenure and co#pel their e#ploers to renew their e#plo#ent contracts% ("$0$n the instantcase, petitioner, did not attain per#anent status and was not illegall dis#issed% As found the '>&C, her contract #erel epired%>astl, we find that petitioner had alread signed a valid @uitclai#, discharge and release which

ars the present action% his Court has held that not all @uitclai#s are per se invalid or againstpulic polic, ecept (1) where there is clear proof that the waiver was wangled fro# anunsuspecting or gullile person, or (2) where the ter#s of settle#ent are unconscionale ontheir face% (")0$n this case, there is no showing that petitioner was coerced into signing the@uitclai#% $n her sworn @uitclai#, she freel declared that she received to her full satisfactionall that is due her reason of her e#plo#ent and that she was voluntaril releasingrespondent Ateneo fro# all clai#s in relation to her e#plo#ent% (""0'othing on the face ofher @uitclai# has een shown as unconscionale%WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lac4 of #erit% he Decision dated 8ctoer 12,


14/28

21 of the Court of Appeals in CA+%&% -" 'o% =117! and its &esolutiondated Feruar 21,22 are AFFIRMED.SO ORDERED.

(G.R. No. ))+*)/. O8to657 /, )40

MT. CARME COEGE, 1ISHOP UIO A1A%EN an! SR. MERCEDES SAUD,!etitioners, "s. NATIONA A1OR REATIONS COMMISSION an! MRS. NORMITA A.1ABE2, res!onents.D E C I S I O NPUNO,J.:

"etitioner :t% Car#el College, through its president, *ishop ?ulio >aaen, and its vicepresident, -ister :ercedes -alud, assails the portion of the Decision of respondent 'ational >aor&elations Co##ission in '>&C Case 'o% &A*$3=..=02N[1] ordering it to pa privaterespondent 'or#ita A% *aRe; the a#ount of "1,2% representing her salar for the unepired

portion of her proationar e#plo#ent%he facts are undisputed

8n ?une 1, 10/0, petitioner school hired private respondent as grade school teacher under a writtenContract of "roationar B#plo#ent% "aragraph of the contract provides for private respondentLssalar and the duration of her e#plo#ent, thus

% hat # salar or wage shall e 8ne housand -i 5undred -event Five "esos("1,=7%) per #onth and until such ti#e as the -chool decides to retain #e in its

per#anent e#plo, m 5mplom5nt t575in sall 65 !55m5! to 7-n 97om S% )#&)$to S% ))&)" !a to !a o9 mont to montand # service #a e ter#inated atan ti#e after $ fail to co#pl with the foregoing conditions laid down the -chool% he-chool shall have no further liailit to #e whatsoever, either wa of separation pa orotherwise%[2] (e#phasis supplied)

$n :arch 1002, petitioner school ter#inated the services of private respondent as she did notpass the 'ational eacherLs *oard Ba#ination%[!]

"rivate respondent filed a co#plaint for illegal dis#issal against the petitioners%he >aor Ariter found petitioners guilt of illegal dis#issal and ordered the# to reinstate

private respondent with full ac4wages%[.]"etitioners appealed to the '>&C%"ulic respondent reversed the decision of the >aor Ariter% $t found private respondentLs

dis#issal fro# service to e legal% "ulic respondent, however, ordered petitioners to pa privaterespondent the a#ount of "1,2%, representing her salar for the unepired portion of her

proationar period% According to pulic respondent, private respondentLs proationar e#plo#entwas supposed to end in ?une 1002, ut her services were ter#inated three (!) #onths earlier, in :arch1002% 5ence, it ordered petitioners to pa private respondent her salar corresponding to those#onths%[]

"etitioners filed the present petition raising the following issuehether or not the '>&C gravel aused its discretion in finding an Punepired portionQ in privaterespondentLs proationar contract, which epires at the end of the school ear 10011002, andholding petitioners liale for the pa#ent of her salar e@uivalent to that Punepired portionQ%[=]

he petition is i#pressed with #erit%"rivate respondentLs e#plo#ent contract stipulated that her e#plo#ent Psall 65 !55m5! to

7-n 97om S% )#&)$ to S% ))&)" !a to !a o9 mont to montQ% nder -ection ./ ofthe :anual of &egulations for "rivate -chools, a school ear or acade#ic ear egins on the second:onda of ?une and shall consist of Papproi#atel fort wee4s of nor#all five school das each,eclusive of approved vacations and including legal and special holidas, and special activities%Q[7]

$n the cases of Espi7it- Santo Pa7o8ial S8ool vs. NRC[/] and Col5;io San A;-stin vs.NRC,[0] the court recogni;ed the distinction etween a calendar ear and a school ear% $n Espi7it-

Santo Pa7o8ial S8ool, we held the petitioners can not tal4 of a Pthreeear proationar e#plo#ent epiring each school ear%Q$f it epires per school ear, it is not a threeear period%


15/28

hen in Col5;io San A;-stin, we said As applied to private school teachers, the proationar period is three ears as provided in the#anual of &egulations for "rivate -chools% $t #ust e stressed that the law spea4s of three yearsnotthree school ears%

'eedless to sa, a calendar ear consists of twelve (12) #onths, while a school ear consists onl often (1) #onths% A school ear egins in ?une of one calendar ear and ends in :arch of thesucceeding calendar ear%

"ulic respondent therefore erred in finding that private respondentLs proationar e#plo#entwas supposed to end in ?une 1002% he contract clearl states the duration of private respondentLster# it shall egin at the opening of school ear 10/0100 (i%e%, ?une 10/0) and shall end at theclosing of school ear 10011002 (i%e%, :arch 1002)% 5ence, petitioners are not oliged to pa privaterespondent her salar for the #onths of April, :a and ?une as her e#plo#ent alread ceased in:arch, in accordance with the provisions of her e#plo#ent contract%

IN 'IEW WHEREOF, the award of "1,2% in favor of private respondent in the Decisionof pulic respondent '>&C in '>&C Case 'o% &A*$3=..=02N is -B A-$DB%

SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. )/$#)" A-;-st "#, "$$)CANDIDO AFARO,petitioner, vs%COURT OF APPEAS, NATIONA A1OR REATIONSCOMMISSION an! STAR PAPER CORPORATION,respondents%PANGANI1AN,J.:+enerall, separation pa need not e paid to an e#ploee who voluntaril resigns% 5owever, ane#ploer who agrees to epend such enefit as an incident of the resignation should not e allowed torenege in the perfor#ance of such co##it#ent%The Case

*efore us is a "etition for &eview on Certiorari 1under &ule . of the &ules of Court, see4ing to setaside the Decision2of the Court of Appeals (CA), which affir#ed the ?une 1=, 100/ Decision of the

'ational >aor &elations Co##ission ('>&C)%!

The +acts

he facts as related petitioner in his :e#orandu#.are hereunder reproduced as followsK"etitioner was e#ploed as a helperHoperator of private respondent since 'ove#er /, 100% Fro#

'ove#er 2!, 100! until Dece#er , 100!, he too4 a sic4 leave% hen he reported ac4 to wor4 onDece#er =, 100!, he was surprised to find out that another wor4er was recruited to ta4e his place,and instead, he was transferred to [the] wrapping section where he was re@uired to wor4 withoverti#e up to 0! ":, fro# his regular wor4ing hours of fro# 7 a%#%, to . p%#%, despite thefact that he had 9ust recovered fro# illness% 8n Dece#er 7, 100!, he was given a new assign#entwhere the wor4 was even #ore difficult[6] when he co#plained o[f] what he felt was rude treat#entor sort of punish#ent since he was eing eposed to hard laor notwithstanding his predica#ent of

9ust co#ing fro# sic4ness, petitioner was told to loo4 for another 9o ecause he was dis#issedeffective on said date, Dece#er 7, 100!, when petitioner was see4ing his 1!th #onth pa and fifteen(1) das sic4 leave pa [o]n the afternoon of the sa#e da, he was ignored when he refused to signdocu#ents which indicated that he was renouncing clai#s against private respondent% *eforeChrist#as of 100!, petitioner sought private respondent to pa his 1!th #onth pa and [his] 1 dassic4 leave pa, ut he was told to co#e net ear%K8n ?anuar 12, 100., petitioner ca#e to private respondent for his aforestated #one clai#s% Duringthat occasion, private respondent dangled to petitioner a chec4 worth "!,% which [would] ereleased to hi#, onl if he [signed] the docu#ents, eing forced upon hi# to sign on Dece#er 7,100!% Desperate for the #one to support his susistence, and against his will, petitioner wasconstrained to sign the said docu#ents which contained no a#ount of #one released to hi#% heactual su# of #one received petitioner fro# private respondent a#ounted to "!,% in thefor# of chec4, while his clai#s for 1 das sic4 leave pa was secured hi# fro# the -ocial-ecurit -ste#%

Khe docu#ents forced upon the petitioner to sign were a Iresignation letter, and a &elease and NuitClai#I% -aid Iresignation letterI read, thusIo the "ersonal :anager:r% :ichael "hilip Bli;alde-tar "aper Corporation.= ?o -t%, +race 3illage,


16/28

N%C%Dear -ir,A4o po si Candido Alfaro a nagiiga ng a4ing resignation letter dahilan po sa a4ing sa4it% #aasa

po a4o na #aigan ng tulong%KAs su#itted private respondent in its pleadings on record, petitioner allegedl tendered saidresignation letter on ?anuar 12, 100., on the asis of which, the for#er #aintains that the latter wasnot illegall dis#issed, was paid [his] separation pa of "/,.%, and that he voluntaril resignedfro# his 9o effective ?anuar 12, 100.%K

"rivate respondent, in its :e#orandu#=, adopts >aor Ariter Donato NuintoIs findings of fact asfollowsKCo#plainant alleges that he was hired respondent corporation in 'ove#er 100 [as] the latterIs#achine tape operator% hereafter, or in the #onth[s] of -epte#er and 8ctoer, 100!, he wassuffered to do so#e painting wor4 on pallets guide using [a] spra gun% As a result, in the third wee4of 8ctoer, 100! he felt general od wea4ness coupled with constant coughing and fever%KAs a conse@uence of his illness, co#plainant alleges that he too4 a vacation leave fro# 'ove#er22, 100! to Dece#er , 100!% 5owever, upon reporting for wor4 on Dece#er =, 100!, co#plainantwas surprised to find out that so#eod was alread recruited to ta4e his place% $nstead, he was

transferred to the wrapping section%K8n Dece#er 7, 100!, co#plainant co#plained of the wor4 eing given to hi# for eing difficultwhich was interpreted as so#e sort of a punish#ent given to hi# the respondent% As a resultthereof, co#plainant alleges that he was dis#issed without valid cause and without due process oflaw% 5e further alleges that he was not paid his 1!th #onth pa and 1 das sic4 leave which he wasclai#ing ecause he refused to sign a docu#ent renouncing all his clai#[s] against respondentcorporation%K8n ?anuar 12, 100., co#plainant went to the respondent corporation to clai# his 1!th #onth paand his 1 das sic4 leave pa% 5e received the a#ount of "!,% ut he was allegedl pressured tosign a Nuitclai# and &elease with no a#ount or consideration written on said docu#ent% Further,co#plainant also alleges that he was also #ade to sign a prepared resignation letter in echange forthe "!,% which he received which [was] contrar to the clai# of the respondent corporation that

he received "/,.2%%K8n ?une 1., 100=, the co#plainant filed a case against the respondent corporation for nonpa#entof separation pa% -aid co#plaint was later a#ended on August 1, 100= clai#ing illegal dis#issaland da#ages in lieu of separation pa, with a praer for reinstate#ent with ac4wages and attorneIsfees%K8n the other hand, respondent corporation #aintains that co#plainant while still under its e#plocontracted "* :ini#al Active for which reason he applied for --- enefits on 'ove#er 2, 100!%Considering his illness, co#plainant as4ed the respondent corporation that he e allowed to resignwith enefits% After getting a favorale repl, co#plainant su#itted a resignation letter to therespondent corporation on ?anuar 12, 100.%K*ecause of his re@uest for help, separation enefits were li4ewise given to co#plainant in the a#ountof "/,.2%% Co#plainant, upon receipt of said enefits, eecuted a &elease and Nuitclai# in favor

of respondent corporation%KThe CA Ruling

$n dening petitionerIs clai#s, the CA ruled as followsK$t is not eas to uphold petitionerIs su#ission% For, the >aor AriterIs report to the 'ational >aor&elations Co##ission shows that petitioner Iresigned voluntarilI% hus, as written in the letter ofresignationIA4o po si candido Alfaro a nagiiga ng a4ing resignation dahilan po sa a4ing sa4it%I#aasa po a4o na #aigan ng tulong%IKhe sa#e report li4ewise #entioned the KNuitclai# and &eleaseK (Anne 2, of private respondentIs

position paper) which further strengthened the fact that petitioner resigned due to his ail#ent% $fpetitionerIs concatenation is true that he was forced to sign the resignation letter against his etter9udg#ent, then wh should he also sign the @uitclai# and release[G]Ke find no reason to reverse and set aside the findings and reco##endation of the >aor Ariter,and affir#ed the '>&C% As a @uasi9udicial od, the findings of the '>&C deserve respect, even


17/28

finalit (:% &a#ire; $ndustries vs% -ecretar of >aor, 2== -C&A 1116 *ataan -hipard andBngineering Corporation vs% '>&C, 2=0 -C&A 1006 'aguiat vs% '>&C, 2=0 -C&A =.6 Conti vs%

'>&C, 271 -C&A 11.%)K5ence, this recourse%7

The Issues

"etitioner su#its the following issues for the consideration of this CourtK1%) hether or not the 5onorale Court of Appeals co##itted grave ause of discretion tanta#ountto lac4 or % % % ecess of 9urisdiction andHor serious reversile error in holding that petitioner was notillegall dis#issed private respondent6K2%) hether or not the 5onorale Court of Appeals co##itted grave ause of discretion tanta#ountto lac4 of or % % % ecess of 9urisdiction, andHor serious reversile error in holding that petitionervoluntaril resigned fro# e#plo#ent6K!%) hether or not the 5onorale Court of Appeals co##itted grave ause of discretion tanta#ountto lac4 of or % % % ecess of 9urisdiction andHor reversile error in holding that the finding of the '>&C,deserve respect and even finalit despite serious flaws in its appreciation of facts and evidence6K.) hether or not the 5onorale Court of Appeals co##itted grave ause of discretion tanta#ountto lac4 of or % % % ecess of 9urisdiction, andHor serious reversile error in dis#issing the petition for

certiorariK/

The Courts Ruling

he "etition has no #erit%ain Issue-Illegal ismissal and #eparation Pay

At the outset, it ears stressing that in a petition for review on certiorari, the scope of the -upre#eCourtIs 9udicial review of decisions of the Court of Appeals is generall confined onl to errors oflaw60@uestions of fact are not entertained% 1hus, onl @uestions of law #a e rought the partiesand passed upon this Court in the eercise of its power to review%11

he -upre#e Court is not a trier of facts, and this doctrine applies with greater force in laor cases% 12

Factual @uestions are for the laor triunals to resolve% 1!$n this case, the factual issues have alreadeen deter#ined the laor ariter and the 'ational >aor &elations Co##ission% heir findingswere affir#ed the CA% ?udicial review this Court does not etend to a reevaluation of the

sufficienc of the evidence upon which the proper laor triunal has ased its deter#ination%1.$ndeed, factual findings of laor officials who are dee#ed to have ac@uired epertise in #atters withintheir respective 9urisdictions are generall accorded not onl respect, ut even finalit, and are indingon the -upre#e Court%13eril, their conclusions are accorded great weight upon appeal, especiallwhen supported sustantial evidence%1=Conse@uentl, the -upre#e Court is not dutound todelve into the accurac of their factual findings, in the asence of a clear showing that the sa#e werearitrar and ereft of an rational asis%17

he factual findings of the laor ariter and the '>&C, as affir#ed the CA, reveal that petitionerresigned fro# his wor4 due to his illness, with the understanding that private respondent would givehi# separation pa% nfortunatel, it see#s that private respondent did not 4eep its pro#ise to grantthe separation pa, pro#pting petitioner to institute the present action for illegal dis#issal% $t was onlfor this reason that the Court gave due course to this "etition%

+enerall, an e#ploee who voluntaril resigns fro# e#plo#ent is not entitled to separation pa% 1/

$n the present case, however, upon the re@uest of petitioner, private respondent agreed to a sche#ewhere the for#er would receive separation pa despite having resigned voluntaril% Thus, the termsand conditions they both agreed upon constituted a contract &reely entered into, /hich should be

per&ormed in good &aith, as it constituted the la/ bet/een the parties%'ot all waivers and @uitclai#s are invalid as against pulic polic% $f the agree#ent was voluntarilentered into and represented a reasonale settle#ent, it is inding on the parties and #a not later edisowned, si#pl ecause of a change of #ind%10he position ta4en petitioner on the allegedillegal dis#issal was vacillating and indecisive, as correctl found the laor ariter who provided aratiocination on the #atter as followsKhus, after a careful perusal of the evidence on hand, we are of the opinion that the position ta4en the respondent corporation is #ore credile than that of co#plainant% his is evident fro# the fact thatthe co#plaint filed co#plainant on ?une 1.,100=, or #ore than two (2) ears fro# his allegeddis#issal on Dece#er 7, 100!, was onl pa#ent of separation pa% $t was onl on August 1, 100=


18/28

when co#plainant aandoned his clai# for separation pa and instead filed an a#ended co#plaintclai#ing that he was, illegall dis#issed%Ko our #ind, therefore, the foregoing coupled with the fact that there is practicall no evidence onrecord which shows that co#plainant was pressured and #ade to sign a resignation letter and &eleaseand Nuitclai# against his will [and] etter 9udg#ent onl shows that his clai# of illegal dis#issal isunsustantiated and is a #ere afterthought%K:oreover, if indeed co#plainant was illegall dis#issed, he should have pursued his clai# againstthe respondent corporation i##ediatel filing a co#plaint for illegal dis#issal% As it is, however,co#plainant filed a co#plaint for separation pa against the respondent corporation onl after two (2)ears fro# his alleged dis#issal which co#plaint was a#ended for the purpose of clai#ing illegaldis#issal al#ost two (2) #onths thereafter%K2

3oluntar resignation is defined as the act of an e#ploee, who finds hi#self in a situation in whichhe elieves that personal reasons cannot e sacrificed in favor of the eigenc of the service6 thus, hehas no other choice ut to disassociate hi#self fro# his e#plo#ent% 21As discussed aove, petitionernegotiated for a resignation with separation pa as the #anner in which his e#plo#ent relations with

private respondent would end% 5e was alread suffering fro# a lingering illness at the ti#e hetendered his resignation% 5is continued e#plo#ent would have een detri#ental not onl to his

health, ut also to his perfor#ance as an e#ploee of private respondent%5ence, the ter#ination of the e#plo#ent relations of petitioner with private respondent wasulti#atel, if not outrightl inevitale% &esignation with separation pa was the est option for hi#under the circu#stances% &ightl so, this was the #ode adopted and agreed upon the parties, asevidenced the &elease and Nuitclai# petitioner eecuted in connection with his resignation%Clearl then, the clai# of petitioner that he was illegall dis#issed cannot e sustained, consideringthat his voluntar resignation has een induital estalished as a fact the three triunals elow%$ndeed, illegal dis#issal and voluntar resignation are adversel opposed #odes of ter#inatinge#plo#ent relations, in that the presence of one precludes that of the other%Although the -upre#e Court has, #ore often than not, een inclined towards the wor4ers and hasupheld their cause in their conflicts with the e#ploers, such inclination has not linded it to the rulethat 9ustice is in ever case for the deserving, to e dispensed in the light of the estalished facts and

applicale law and doctrine%22An e#ploee who resigns and eecutes a @uitclai# in favor of thee#ploer is generallyestopped fro# filing an further #one clai#s against the e#ploer arisingfro# the e#plo#ent%2!

5owever, private respondent has not co#plied with its oligation to give petitionerIs separation pa inthe a#ount of "/,.2%% $t was this delierate withholding of #onetar enefits that necessitated thelong, litigious and lethargic proceedings in this case% 5ad private respondent si#pl paid the #easla#ount of "/,.2% as separation pa to petitioner, this legal controvers could have een avoidedand the court doc4ets unclogged%5B&BF8&B, the "etition is here DB'$BD and the assailed Decision of the Court of AppealsAFF$&:BD, with the #odification that private respondent is directed to pa petitioner "/,.2% pluslegal interest thereon, co#puted fro# Dece#er 7, 100!, until full paid, representing the unpaidseparation pa enefit agreed upon the parties%

-8 8&DB&BD%G.R. No. #)$#+ -n5 ), ))INTERTROD MARITIME, INC. an! TROODOS SHIPPING CO.,petitioners, vs%NATIONAA1OR REATIONS COMMISSION an! ERNESTO DE A CRU2, respondents.

el Rosario 0 el Rosario &or petitioners.

PADIA,J.:!his petition see4s the annul#ent andHor #odification of the resolution of the First Division of the

'ational >aor &elations Co##ission pro#ulgated on 11 Dece#er 10/7 in '-* Case 'o% !007/2entitled KBrnesto de la Cru; vs% $ntertrod :ariti#e, $nc% and roodos -hipping Co#pan,K whichreversed the decision of then "8BA Ad#inistrator "atricia -to% o#as dated 2 Dece#er 10/!%8n 1 :a 10/2, private respondent Brnesto de la Cru; signed a shipoard e#plo#ent contract with

petitioner roodos -hipping Co#pan as principal and petitioner $ntertrod :ariti#e, $nc%, as agent toserve as hird Bngineer on oard the :H K*&BBDB'K for a period of twelve (12) #onths with a


19/28

asic #onthl salar of -S0%%)

"rivate respondent eventuall oarded a sister vessel, :H KAFA:$-K and proceeded to wor4 as thevesselIs hird Bngineer under the sa#e ter#s and conditions of his e#plo#ent contract previouslreferred to%"

8n 2= August 10/2, while the ship (:H KAfa#isK) was at "ort "los, +reece, private respondentre@uested for relief, due to Kpersonal reason%K 3 he :aster of the ship approved his re@uest utinfor#ed private respondent that repatriation epenses were for his account and that he had to givethirt (!) das notice in view of the Clause of the e#plo#ent contract so that a replace#ent forhi# (private respondent) could e arranged% /

8n ! August 10/2, while the vessel was at "ort -aid in Bgpt and despite the fact that it was onlfour (.) das after private respondentIs re@uest for relief, the :aster Ksigned hi# offK and paid hi# incash all a#ounts due hi# less the a#ount of -S7/% for his repatriation epenses, as evidenced the wages account signed the private respondent%*

8n his return to the "hilippines, private respondent filed a co#plaint with the 'ational -ea#en *oard('-*)(now "8BA) charging petitioners for reach of e#plo#ent contract and violation of '-*rules and regulations%4"rivate respondent alleged that his re@uest for relief was #ade in order to ta4ecare of a Filipino #e#er of the crew of :H KAFA:$-K who was hospitali;ed on 2 August 10/2 in

Athens, +reece% 5owever, the :aster of the ship refused to let hi# i##ediatel dise#ar4 in +reeceso that the reason for his re@uest for relief ceased to eist% 5ence, when the :aster of the ship forcedhi# to step out in Bgpt despite his protestations to the contrar, there eing no #ore reason tore@uest for relief, an illegal dis#issal occurred and he had no other recourse ut to return to the"hilippines at his own epense% +

$n its Answer to the co#plaint, petitioners denied the allegations of the co#plainant and averred thatthe contract was cut short ecause of private respondentIs own re@uest for relief so that it was onl

proper that he should pa for his repatriation epenses in accordance with the provisions of theire#plo#ent contract%#

he sole issue to e resolved in this case is whether or not co#plainantIs ter#ination is illegal%"8BA rendered a decision dis#issing the co#plaint for lac4 of #erit% 8n appeal to the '>&C, thedecision was reversed%

he dispositive portion of the '>&C decision reads5B&BF8&B, the appealed decision is here -B A-$DB and another one entered, directingrespondentsappellees to (1) pa co#plainantappellant the a#ount of -S7/% representing his

plane fare fro# Bgpt to :anila6 and (2) pa co#plainantappellant the a#ount of -S=,!%representing his unearned salar for nine (0) #onths, the unepired portion of the contract%Foreign echange conversions shall e paid in "hilippine currenc at the rate of echange at the actual

pa#ent thereof%-8 8&DB&BD%)$

5ence, this petition%Article 21(c) of the >aor Code re@uires that the "hilippine 8verseas B#plo#ent Ad#inistration(for#erl '-*) should approve and verif a contract for overseas B#plo#ent% ))A contract, which isapproved the 'ational -ea#en *oard, such as the one in this case, is the law etween the

contracting parties6 and where there is nothing in it which is contrar to law, #orals, good custo#s,pulic polic or pulic order, the validit of said contract #ust e sustained% )"

$n its resolution, the '>&C held that the i##ediate approval of private respondentIs re@uest for reliefshould have resulted in his dise#ar4ation in "ort "los, +reece6 that failure of the :aster to allowdise#ar4ation in +reece nullified the re@uest for relief and its approval, such that privaterespondentIs suse@uent dise#ar4ation in Bgpt is no longer his doing ut rather an illegal dis#issalon the part of the :aster% )3e cannot support such a ruling for it fails to consider the clear i#port ofthe provisions of the e#plo#ent contract etween petitioners and private respondent%"aragraph of the B#plo#ent Contract etween petitioners and private respondent Brnesto de laCru; provides as follows% hat, if the sea#an decide to ter#inate his contract prior to the epiration of the service period asstated and defined in paragraph . of this B#plo#ent Contract, without due cause, he will give the:aster thirt (!) das notice and agree to allow his repatriation epenses to e deducted fro# wagesdue hi#%)/


20/28

Clearl, therefore, private respondent Brnesto de la Cru; was re@uired the e#plo#ent contract notonl to pa his own repatriation epenses ut also to give thirt (!) das notice should he decide toter#inate his e#plo#ent prior to the epiration of the period provided in the contract% hen the:aster approved his re@uest for relief, the :aster e#phasi;ed that private respondent was re@uired togive thirt (!) das notice and to shoulder his own repatriation epenses% Approval of his re@uest forrelief, therefore, did not constitute a waiver petitioners of the provisions of the contract, as privaterespondent would have us elieve, for it was #ade clear to hi# that the provisions of the contract,insofar as the thirt (!) das notice and repatriation epenses were concerned, were to e enforced%"rivate respondent clai#s that his re@uest for relief was onl for the reason of ta4ing care of a fellow#e#er of the crew so #uch so that when he was not allowed to dise#ar4 in "ort "los, +reece, thereason no longer eisted and, therefore, when he was forced to Ksign offK at "ort -aid, Bgpt evenwhen he signified intentions of continuing his wor4, he was illegall dis#issed% )*e s#pathi;e withthe private respondent6 however, we cannot sustain such contention% &esignation is the voluntar actof an e#ploee who Kfinds hi#self in a situation where he elieves that personal reasons cannot esacrificed in favor of the eigenc of the service, then he has no other choice ut to disassociatehi#self fro# his e#plo#ent%K )4 he e#ploer has no control over resignations and so, thenotification re@uire#ent was devised in order to ensure that no disruption of wor4 would e involved

reason of the resignation% his practice has een recogni;ed ecause Kever usiness enterpriseendeavors to increase its profits adopting a device or #eans designed towards that goal%K )+

&esignations, once accepted and eing the sole act of the e#ploee, #a not e withdrawn withoutthe consent of the e#ploer% $n the instant case, the :aster had alread accepted the resignation and,although the private respondent was eing re@uired to serve the thirt (!) das notice provided in thecontract, his resignation was alread approved% "rivate respondent cannot clai# that his resignationceased to e effective ecause he was not i##ediatel discharged in "ort "los, +reece, for he couldno longer unilaterall withdraw such resignation% hen he later signified his intention of continuinghis wor4, it was alread up to the petitioners to accept his withdrawal of his resignation% he #ere factthat the did not accept such withdrawal did not constitute illegal dis#issal for acceptance of thewithdrawal of the resignation was their (petitionersI) sole prerogative%8nce an e#ploee resigns and his resignation is accepted, he no longer has an right to the 9o% $f the

e#ploee later changes his #ind, he #ust as4 for approval of the withdrawal of his resignation fro#his e#ploer, as if he were reappling for the 9o% $t will then e up to the e#ploer to deter#inewhether or not his service would e continued% $f the e#ploer accepts said withdrawal, the e#ploeeretains his 9o% $f the e#ploer does not, as in this case, the e#ploee cannot clai# illegal dis#issalfor the e#ploer has the right to deter#ine who his e#ploees will e% o sa that an e#ploee whohas resigned is illegall dis#issed, is to encroach upon the right of e#ploers to hire persons who will

e of service to the#%Further#ore, the e#plo#ent contract also provides as follows.% hat all ter#s and conditions agreed herein are for a service period of twelve (12) #onths providedthe vessel is in a convenient port for his repatriation, otherwise at :asterIs discretion, on vesselIsarrival at the first port where repatriation is practicale provided that such continued service shall noteceed three #onths%)#

nder the ter#s of the e#plo#ent contract, it is the shipIs :aster who deter#ines where a sea#anre@uesting relief #a e Ksigned off%K $t is, therefore, erroneous for private respondent to clai# thathis resignation was effective onl in +reece and that ecause he was not i##ediatel allowed todise#ar4 in +reece (as the e#ploer wanted co#pliance with the contractual conditions forter#ination on the part of the e#ploee), the resignation was to e dee#ed auto#aticall withdrawn%he decision of the '>&C is therefore set aside% o sustain it would e to authori;e undue oppressionof the e#ploer% After all, Kthe law, in protecting the rights of the laorer, authori;es neitheroppression nor selfdestruction of the e#ploer%K)

5B&BF8&B, the petition is +&A'BD% he @uestioned resolution of the 'ational >aor &elationsCo##ission dated 11 Dece#er 10/7 is here &B3B&-BD and -B A-$DB and the decision ofthen "8BA Ad#inistrator "atricia -to% o#as dated 2 Dece#er 10/! is &B3$3BD% 'o

pronounce#ent as to costs%-8 8&DB&BD%(G.R. No. )4))4, -l "#, "$$#0


21/28

1UE ANGE MANPOWER AND SECURIT% SER'ICES, INC., PETITIONER, 'S. HON.COURT OF APPEAS, ROME CASTIO, WISON CIRIACO, GAR% GARCES, ANDCHESTERFIED MERCADER, RESPONDENTS.

D E C I S I O N

'EASCO R., .:

$n this petition for review under &ule ., petitioner *lue Angel :anpower and -ecurit -ervices, $nc%(*lue Angel) assails and see4s to reverse the Decision [1]dated Feruar 2=, 2! of the Court ofAppeals (CA) in CA+%&% -" 'o% =7.7/, in part setting aside the Decision dated :a 0, 21 of the

'ational >aor &elations Co##ission ('>&C)%

he facts are as found the CA%

*lue Angel, a #essengerial and securit agenc, hired private respondents &o#el Castillo, ilson

Ciriaco, +ar +arces, and Chesterfield :ercader as securit guards and detailed the# at the 'ationalCollege of *usiness and Arts ('C*A) in Cuao, Nue;on Cit%

8n April 2, 1000, Castillo and :ercader, later 9oined Ciriaco and +arces, filed a co#plaint forillegal deductions and other #one clai#s against *lue Angel% Bventuall, the a#ended theirco#plaint to include illegal dis#issal% According to the four guards, the were re@uired, while stillwith *lue Angel, to wor4 fro# 7 a%#% to 7 p%#% without overti#e and pre#iu# holida pa,a#ong other enefits% he also alleged receiving onl "h" , a #onth or "h" 1== per da and,fro# this a#ount, *lue Angel deducted "h" 1 as cash ond% he further averred that *lue Angel,when apprised of their original co#plaint, illegall ter#inated +arces and Ciriaco on April 11 and 12,1000, respectivel, and Castillo and :ercader on April 2/, 1000% he four guards praed for (1)

pa#ent of ac4wages, wage differentials, pre#iu# and overti#e pa for holidas, and 1!th #onthpa6 (2) rei#urse#ent of their cash ond6 (!) reinstate#ent or separation pa6 and (.) da#ages%

*lue Angel, for its part, denied the charges of illegal dis#issal% $t alleged that, on two occasions, theofficerincharge (8$C) of the -ecurit Force of 'C*A, &enaldo Daag, reported that the fourco#plaining guards had, while on guard dut detail with the school, co##itted several infractions,a#ong the# insuordination, sleeping while on dut, and asence without leave (A8>)% hensu##oned to eplain their side on the derogator report, onl Castillo, Ciriaco, and +arces, accordingto *lue Angel, showed up, ut not :ercader who had since stopped reporting for wor4 and thusconsidered on A8>% Continuing, *lue Angel alleged that when told that the would e su9ected toan investigation, Castillo, Ciriaco, and +arces pleaded that the e allowed to resign instead% hethree, so *lue Angel clai#ed, then tendered their pro"&orma letters of resignation followed

handwritten resignation letters in the nature of @uitclai#s% o refute the guardsI clai#s of nonpa#ent of what was due the#, *lue Angel presented the parolls and vouchers fro# ?ul 1007 toApril 1000 that showed the four guardsI respective gross salaries and deductions%

$n a Decision[2]dated :a !1, 2, the laor ariter, in part, found for the guards, *lue Angel eingordered to i##ediatel reinstate the# with ac4wages% he dispositive portion of the laor ariterIsdecision reads5B&BF8&B, pre#ises considered, 9udg#ent is here rendered ordering *lue Angel -ecurit and:anpower -ervices, $nc% to i##ediatel reinstate the co#plainants to their for#er positions pursuantto the ruling in the "ioneer eturing case that an order of reinstate#ent is selfeecutor even

pending appeal%

&espondent is here ordered to pa the ac4wages of the co#plainants tentativel co#puted asfollows(cut)


22/28

-8 8&DB&BD%Dissatisfied, *lue Angel, on one hand, and Castillo, et al%, on the other, interposed separate appeals tothe '>&C, the for#er faulting the laor ariter #ainl for his finding that the four guards in @uestionwere illegall dis#issed% he guards, for their part, too4 eception to the ariterIs holding that so#e

ite#s of their #one clai# had alread een paid%

* the Decision dated :a 0, 21, the '>&C affir#ed with #odification that of the laor ariter%he '>&C predicated its #odificator action on the finding that Castillo, Ciriaco, and +arces werenot ter#inated fro# the service as the had indeed voluntaril resigned, and that onl :ercader wasillegall dis#issed% $n net effect, the '>&C ruled that, of the four co#plaining guards, onl :ercaderdeserved to e reinstated with ac4wages as he was the onl one dis#issed illegall% he dispositive

portion of the '>&C Decision reads5B&BF8&B, in light of the foregoing, the appealed Decision is here AFF$&:BD with the#odification onl in so far as the dis#issal of the co#plaints filed &o#el Castillo, [ilson]Ciriaco and +ar +arces6 the 9udg#ent arrived at in the case of co#plainant Chesterfield :ercader ishere Affir#ed%

All other reliefs herein sought and praed for are DB'$BD for lac4 of #erit%

-8 8&DB&BD%[!]

According to the '>&C, the two sets of letters of resignation, the pro"&ormaresignations and thehandwritten resignations, were never disputed% *esides, the '>&C reasoned, the fact that the laterresignation letters were handwritten inPilipino, a dialect 4nown to the#, #ilitated against the clai#sof Castillo, Ciriaco, and +arces that the were coerced and pressured to writing the letters%

8n certiorari efore the CA, the CA first noted that *lue Angel did not appeal the portion of the'>&C Decision affir#ing the laor ariterIs ruling that :ercader was illegall dis#issed6 hence, saidportion of the decision of the laor ariter eca#e final and inding on *lue Angel%

'ow to the case of Castillo, Ciriaco, and +arces% $n its Feruar 2=, 2! Decision, the CA foundincredulous the clai# of *lue Angel that the guards pleaded that the e allowed to resign and hadvoluntaril resigned after the were told that an investigation would ensue% he CA concluded that*lue Angel had illegall ter#inated Castillo, Ciriaco, and +arces% he&alloof its Decision reads5B&BF8&B, 5B "B$$8' is here +&A'BD% he decision of the 'ational >aor &elationsCo##ission dated :a 0, 21 is A''>>BD A'D -B A-$DB ecept insofar as it sustained thelaor ariterIs ruling that petitioner Chesterfield :ercader was illegall dis#issed, with the result thatthe decision of the laor ariter dated :a !1, 2 is reinstated%

-8 8&DB&BD%

'ow efore us, petitioner *lue Angel raises that the CA co##itted palpale and reversile error oflaw in$% 58>D$'+ 5A "&$3AB &B-"8'DB'- B&B $>>B+A>>< D$-:$--BD%

$$% $' '8 58>D$'+ 5A "&$3AB &B-"8'DB'- A&B '8 B'$>BD 8 5B$&C>A$:- F8& *ACMA+B- 8& A'< 85B& :8'BA&< *B'BF$ A- 5B< 5A3BA>&BAD< &BCB$3BD A>> 5B -A>A&$B- A'D *B'BF$- 5A 5B< A&B B'$>BD8%$t is to e stressed, as a preli#inar consideration, that the illegalit of :ercaderIs dis#issal and hisentitle#ent to reinstate#ent with ac4wages is now a settled issue, the '>&CIs holding on that regard

eing conclusive on *lue Angel when it failed, as the CA aptl oserved, to appeal that portion of the'>&CIs decision% $t is a settled rule that no @uestions will e entertained on appeal unless the have

een raised elow%[.]Accordingl, an disposition henceforth #ade herein earing on the illegalit ofdis#issal shall e li#ited onl to the case of private respondents Castillo, Ciriaco, and +arces% hen


23/28

#ention, therefore, is hereinafter #ade of private respondents or respondentsguards, the reference isto Castillo, Ciriaco and +arces onl, unless the contet indicates that it shall include :ercader%

he @uestion of whether or not private respondents were illegall dis#issed hinges on thedeter#ination of whether or not the freel and voluntaril resigned as shown the two sets of

resignation letters%

e rule that the resignations were involuntar and the ter#ination of private respondents was illegal%

*lue Angel insists that the guards had pleaded to e allowed to resign when the were told of thepending investigation, and that the eventuall tendered their pro"&ormaresignation letters followed their own handwritten resignation letters% 8ur review of the circu#stances surrounding theseresignation letters does not support *lue AngelIs contentions that these letters are indications that

private respondents had voluntaril resigned% e agree with the laor ariter when he pointed out thatthe undated, si#ilarl worded resignation letters tended to show that the guards were #ade to copthepro"&ormaletters, in their own hand, to #a4e the# appear #ore convincing that the guards hadvoluntaril resigned% As the laor ariter noted, the ele#ent of voluntariness of the resignations is

even #ore suspect considering that the second set of resignation letters were predrafted, si#ilarlworded, and with lan4 spaces filled in with the effectivit dates of the resignations% [] $n theirCo##ent, private respondents clai#ed eing forced to sign and cop the pro"&ormaresignation lettersand @uitclai#s on pain that the would not get their re#aining co#pensations% [=]

e are #ore inclined to elieve the dis#issed guards% 8ther circu#stances have een aptl pointedout respondentsguards in their Co##ent that we are wont to agree that the were forced into asituation where to refuse to sign the resignation letters and @uitclai#s #eant loss of #one for thei##ediate and urgent asic needs of their fa#il% o uttress the conclusion that the resignationletters were involuntar on the part of the guards, we find convincing the circu#stances #entioned inthe Co##ent of respondentsguards% For one, it see#ed unli4el and i#proale that +arces andCiriaco would voluntaril resign on April 2=, 1000 when the had 1 and 12 das earlier, or on April11 and 12, 1000, alread een ter#inated% hen again, it was li4ewise inconsistent and i#plausilethat Castillo would voluntaril tender his resignation and sign a @uitclai# on April 2/, 1000, when:ercader and he had in fact alread filed a co#plaint against *lue Angel with the '>&C regardingillegal deductions of their salar eight das earlier, or on April 2, 1000% [7]>astl, there is nothing onrecord showing that *lue Angel provided an proof that Castillo, Ciriaco, and +arces had indeedco##itted the infractions attriuted to the#% *lue Angel #erel enu#erated the offenses without

providing particulars as to the date and place these infractions were co##itted% 'either did *lueAngel present written notices, warnings, and affidavits of the 8$C to support its allegations against theguards%

e are not unaware that the eecution of the resignation letters was undisputed, ut the

afore#entioned circu#stances of this case and the fact that private respondents filed a co#plaint forillegal dis#issal fro# e#plo#ent against *lue Angel co#pletel negate the clai# that privaterespondents voluntaril resigned%[/]ellentrenched is the rule that resignation is inconsistent with thefiling of a co#plaint for illegal dis#issal%[0] o constitute resignation, the resignation #ust eunconditional with the intent to operate as such% here #ust e clear intention to relin@uish the

position% $n this case, private respondents activel pursued their illegal dis#issal case against *lueAngel such that the cannot e said to have voluntaril resigned fro# their 9os%

ith the finding that private respondents were illegall dis#issed, the are entitled to reinstate#ent totheir positions without loss of their seniorit rights and with full ac4wages, inclusive of allowances,and to other enefits or their #onetar e@uivalent co#puted fro# the ti#e private respondentsIco#pensation was withheld fro# the# up to the ti#e of their actual reinstate#ent as provided for in

Article 270 of the >aor Code%

8/13/201

Documents

Labor Full Txt Cases