Re: Voluntary Resignation | Quitclaims

 Re: Voluntary Resignation | Voluntary agreements, such as quitclaims, entered into and represented by a reasonable settlement, are binding on the parties and may not be later disowned simply because of a change of mind. |

The Court must rely on the actual proof presented as evidence, such as Peckson's resignation letters, rather than mere allegations of fraud and deception. 

Peckson filed a complaint for constructive dismissal with the NLRC on April 11, 2005, alleging that he was forced to resign by De Jesus after he accused him of falsifying De Jesus' signature in an "Authority to Travel" form. Panasonic maintained that Peckson voluntarily resigned from work, as seen in his two resignation letters, exit interview, clearance procedure, and signing of a quitclaim and release. De Jesus allegedly threatened to terminate Peckson's employment the next day.

Proceedings in the LA and the NLRC

LA Danna M. Castillon dismissed Peckson's complaint for lack of merit, ruling that Peckson's resignation was a voluntary act and his conduct during his exit interview showed his voluntariness. He also filed his complaint 18 months after his resignation.

Peckson filed an appeal with the NLRC, which was dismissed for being filed out of time. The NLRC found that Peckson's act of resigning was voluntary and that there was nothing on record to prove the allegations in the complaint.

Proceedings in the CA

The CA reversed the lower courts' decisions in a Decision on December 7, 2012. The CA found that Peckson was constructively dismissed and was entitled to full backwages, separation pay, and damages. The CA also ordered Panasonic and De Jesus to pay Peckson full backwages, separation pay, moral damages, exemplary damages, and Attorney's Fees equivalent to 10% of the total award.

Panasonic's Motion for Reconsideration was denied. Hence, this Petition.

The Issues

The issues can be melded into two: Whether or not Peckson's resignation was voluntary, and if so, whether or not Panasonic and De Jesus are guilty of constructive dismissal.

The Parties' Arguments

Panasonic argues that the CA erred in ruling that Peckson's resignation was not voluntary, despite the fact that Peckson submitted two resignation letters, expressed gratitude to the officers, completed an exit interview, signed a quitclaim and release, and received his final pay. Peckson counters that the C A correctly reversed the decision of the LA and NLRC, and that Panasonic cannot be held guilty of constructive dismissal. Peckson alleges that the LA and NLRC failed to take cognizance of his affidavit dated September 5, 2003, which stated that De Jesus took away Peckson's supervisory functions and his office laptop. He also alleges that Panasonic failed to address his accusation that he was invalidly put on floating status, and that he was accused of forging his signature.

Ruling of the Court

The petition is meritorious, as Peckson's resignation was voluntary and not effected by Panasonic's hostile treatment. The Court disagrees with the finding of the CA that Panasonic failed to prove that Peckson resigned out of his own volition and without any outside influence from the company. Constructive dismissal is defined as quitting or cessation of work due to a demotion in rank or a diminution of pay and other benefits. The test of constructive dismissal is whether a reasonable person in the employee's position would have felt compelled to give up his employment/position under the circumstances. Resignation is the voluntary act of an employee who believes personal reasons cannot be sacrificed in favor of the exigency of the service.

In illegal dismissal cases, the employer must prove that the employee voluntarily resigned. Panasonic proved that Peckson's resignation letters showed the voluntariness of his separation from Panasonic. The Court found that Peckson's resignation letters were grounded in his desire to leave the company, not any deceitful machination or coercion on the part of Panasonic. Additionally, the Court found that Peckson's subsequent and contemporaneous actions belie his claim that he was subjected to harassment on the part of Panasonic. Peckson neglected to show any sign that he had reached out to company management regarding his alleged complaints with De Jesus or any other employee of Panasonic, and if he did, he failed to show the same.

Peckson's claim that he was instructed to express gratitude in his letter cannot be used as proof of the company's transgressions. He also claims that he was put on floating status after he was instructed to file a resignation letter. The Court has previously held that voluntary agreements, such as quitclaims, entered into and represented by a reasonable settlement, are binding on the parties and may not be later disowned simply because of a change of mind.

The Court must rely on the actual proof presented as evidence, such as Peckson's resignation letters, rather than mere allegations of fraud and deception. In BMG Records (Phils.), Inc. v. Aparecio, the Court found no evidence to support Aparecio's allegation that fraud was employed on her to resign. Fraud and misrepresentation must be proved by clear and convincing evidence, not preponderance of evidence. This Court does not sustain findings of fraud upon circumstances which create only suspicion. Peckson failed to show any substantial evidence that he was treated unfairly and was forced to resign.

His belated filing of a complaint highlights the lack of merit to his accusations. Vicente v. CA suggests that the employer bears the burden of proof that the resignation is voluntary and not the product of coercion or intimidation. Petitioner failed to substantiate her claim of constructive dismissal.

While the rights of the workers, as with all human rights, must be protected, the law does not authorize the oppression or self-destruction of the employer. The constitutional commitment to the policy of social justice cannot be understood to mean that every labor dispute shall automatically be decided in favor of labor, especially when the antecedent facts indicate the lack of malfeasance on the part of the management. In this case, Peckson was not able to overcome his burden to prove that his resignation was involuntary. Nor was he able to properly assail with his own evidence Panasonic's proof that he left of his own accord. Thus, the CA erred in deviating from the findings of both the LA and the NLRC, findings, which, upon our own independent review, show without a shadow of the doubt the voluntariness of Peckson's actions and separation from work.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated December 7, 2012 of the Court of Appeals, and its Resolution dated March 15, 2013, in CA-G.R. SP No. 118641, which set aside the Decisions dated May 11, 2010 and September 30, 2010 of the National Labor Relations Commission in NLRC-LAC Case No. RAB IV-4-20622-05-RI affirming the ruling of the Labor Arbiter, are hereby REVERSED AND SET ASIDE. The Decision dated September 30, 2010 of the National Labor Relations Commission is REINSTATED AND AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Read the full decision at

https://dlupload.com/filedetail/785511270

Click *FREE ACCESS to download