Friday, June 14, 2019

[CASE DIGEST] DIONISIO F. AUZA, JR., ADESSA F. OTARRA, and ELVIE JEANJAQUET v. MOL PHILIPPINES, INC. (G.R. No. 175481)

November 21, 2012

Ponente: Del Castillo, J.

FACTS:

·         MOL is a common carrier engaged in transporting cargoes to and from the different parts of the world. On October 1, 1997, it employed Dionisio Auza and Elvie Jeanjaquet as Cebu’s Branch Manager and Administrative Assistant, respectively. It also employed Adessa Otarra as its Accounts Officer on November 1, 1997.

·         On October 14, 2002, Otarra tendered her resignation letter effective November 15, 2002. Auza and Jeanjaquet submitted their resignation letters on October 30, 2002 to take effect on November 30, 2002. 

·         The three were then given their separation pay and the monetary value of leave credits, 13th month pay, MOL cooperative shares and unused dental/optical benefits as shown in documents entitled "Remaining Entitlement Computation," which documents were signed by each of them acknowledging receipt of such benefits. Afterwhich, they executed Release and Quitclaims and then issued Separation Clearances.

·         In February 2004 or almost 15 months after their severance from employment, the three filed separate Complaints for illegal dismissal before the Arbitration Branch of the NLRC against MOL. They averred that their separation from employment amounted to constructive dismissal due to the shabby treatment they received at the time they were being compelled to quit employment.These complaints were later consolidated. 

·         The three were claiming that their consent to resign was not voluntarily given but was instead obtained through mistake and fraud. They claimed that they were led to believe that MOL’s Cebu branch would be downsized into a mere skeletal force due to alleged low productivity and profitability volume. Pressured into resigning prior to the branch’s closure as they might be denied separation pay, the three were constrained to resign.

·         The Labor Arbiter dismissed the Complaints without prejudice for failure to prosecute due to Auza, et al.'s belated filing of Position Paper and their counsel's lack of authority to file and sign the same.

·         Auza, et al. appealed to the NLRC, claiming that the Labor Arbiter defied judicial pronouncements that the failure to submit a Position Paper on time is not a ground for dismissing a complaint. The NLRC reversed the LA ruling and opted to decide on the merits of the case. It found that Auza, et al.'s resignation letters and quitclaims are invalid and were signed under duress. The NLRC concluded that Auza, et al. were illegally dismissed and thus granted them the relief of reinstatement, full backwages, and attorney’s fees.  

·         MOL filed an appeal before the CA, arguing that separation benefits were paid to Auza, et al. for which quitclaims were duly executed. Hence, the three ex-employees are effectively barred from instituting any action or claim in connection with their employment. MOL likewise posited that the three are guilty of laches by estoppel considering that they filed their complaints only after the lapse of 15 months from their severance from employment.

·         The CA eventually ruled in MOL's favor. The CA did not find any element of coercion and force in Auza, et al.'s separation from employment but rather upheld the voluntary execution of their resignation letters as gleaned from the tenor thereof. It opined that Auza, et al. were aware of the consequences of their acts in voluntarily resigning and executing quitclaims..

RULING: 

CA affirmed.




Whether Auza, et al. had resigned voluntarily. – YES.

·         The Court affirms the finding of the CA that Auza, et al. were not illegally dismissed from employment but instead voluntarily resigned therefrom. Contrary to their assertions, Auza, et al. were not lured by any misrepresentation by MOL.  Instead, they themselves were convinced that their separation was inevitable and for this, they voluntarily resigned. As aptly observed by the CA, no element of force can be deduced from their letters of resignation as the same even contained expressions of gratitude and thus contradicting their allegations that same were prepared by their employer.

·         Auza, et al. aver that immediately after receiving their separation pay, they found out that the Cebu branch was not closed but merely transferred to a bigger office and staffed by newly hired employees. Notably, however, despite such knowledge, they did not immediately contest their resignations but waited for more than a year or nearly 15 months before contesting them. This negates their claim that they were victims of deceit.

·         Moreover, no adequate proof was presented to show that the planned downsizing of Cebu branch did not take place. Similarly, Auza, et al.'s allegations of bad faith on the part of MOL are unsupported by records. No proof whatsoever was advanced to show that there was threat of withholding their separation pay unless their resignation letters were submitted prior to the actual closure of the Cebu branch or that they were subjected to ill treatment and unpalatable working conditions immediately prior to their resignation.

·          Auza and Otarra are managerial employees and not ordinary workers who cannot be easily coerced or intimidated into signing something against their will. As borne out by the records, Auza was the Local Chairman of International Shipping Lines Association for five years, president of their Homeowner’s Association and an active member of his community. Otarra, on the other hand, was officer of various church organizations and a college professor at the University of the Visayas. Their standing in society depicts how highly educated and intelligent persons they are as to know fully well the consequences of their acts in executing and signing letters of resignation and quitclaims..