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:
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..