Pressured

Did he resign or was he fired? This is the usual question in illegal dismissal cases like this case of Terry.

Terry was the Human Resources Development Department Manager of a company engaged in manufacturing of fine furniture, fixtures and ornaments for export (CCI) with a monthly salary of P30,000, convertible paid leave of 30 days, gasoline allowance and health care benefits.

On November 24, 2000, CCI extended to Terry a loan of P1,035,000 for the purchase of a lot as evidenced by a promissory note wherein he authorized the company to deduct P5,000 from his monthly salary as installment payment for the debt.

Subsequently on February 24, 2003 CCI’s account manager told Terry that in consideration of his loan, the company president Lina wanted him to sign a real estate mortgage over the lot. Terry however refused contending that there was no agreement between him and Lina when the loan was contracted.

On March 29, 2003, Menchu the company consultant called Terry to a meeting and thereafter they proceeded to the office of Lina where Terry was shown a memorandum detailing his infractions and regretfully informing him that the “company will have to terminate your services at the earliest possible time in view of the loss of trust and confidence in your ability to handle your present position. This is brought about by the series of events which has made your stay with the company untenable”.

The parties differ on their accounts of what transpired in Lina’s office. According to the company and Lina, when Terry was shown the memorandum detailing his infractions, Terry allegedly refused to receive it and instead pleaded that he be allowed to resign as he did not want the stain of dismissal on his employment record. In fact they claimed that on March 31, 2003 the security guard reported in his handwritten log book that when Terry took out his belongings and was on the way out of the gate, he told the guard that he was “up to today only” and that he will not come back here”.

Terry however denied that he offered to resign. He said that he did not submit any resignation letter and even reported back to work on April 3, 2003. However he said was barred from entering unless he signed the visitor’s logbook; and when he was able to talk to Menchu, the latter told him that another memorandum confirming that of March 29, 2003 would be issued unless he tendered his resignation and executed a real estate mortgage in favor of the company. Terry further said that on the same day a memorandum dated March 31, 2003 was indeed given to him confirming the details of the March 29, 2009 memo but stating that he was allowed to resign by the company.

Soon after this last meeting with Menchu, Terry filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, illegal deduction and non-payment of wages, 13th month pay, service incentive leave pay and allowances.

The Labor Arbiter ruled there was no proof that Terry was in fact terminated from employment nor was there proof that Terry resigned so he ordered the reinstatement of Terry without back wages. On appeal the NLRC initially ruled that there was illegal dismissal based on the memo terminating Terry’s services and on the fact that he was barred from reporting for work. Subsequently however, the NLRC reversed itself and said that Terry voluntarily resigned when he made known to the company security guard that he was quitting. Was the NLRC correct?

No. Terry did not voluntarily resign but was in fact illegally dismissed. The Memo of March 29, 2003 is actually a notice of termination and not merely a memo detailing Terry’s infractions. Thus it can be seen that when Terry went to Lina’s office together with Menchie, the company and Lina were decided on terminating his services.

The lack of any resignation letter is significant considering that Terry allegedly pleaded to be allowed to resign during the meeting of March 29, 2003 with Lina and Menchie. If Terry had indeed opted to avail of this alternative then they would have asked him to tender a resignation letter at that very moment. However Terry did no such thing and even went back several times to speak to Menchie until he was finally barred from entering company premises on April 3, 2003. The security guard’s report does not conclusively establish Terry’s resignation. His statement that he is “up to today only” and “will not come back here” does not necessarily indicate that he resigned but could mean he was leaving the company due to other causes.

Moreover, Terry filed his complaint for illegal dismissal with the NLRC soon after the last meeting with Menchie. This filing is difficult to reconcile with voluntary resignation. Had Terry intended to voluntarily relinquish his job he would not have immediately sought redress from the NLRC. He clearly manifested that he had no intention of resigning when he urgently and vigorously pursued this case against the company and Lina.

Resignation is the voluntary act of employees who are compelled for personal reasons to dissociate themselves from their employment. It must be done with the intention of relinquishing an office accompanied by the act of abandonment. In this case, Terry did not voluntarily resign. He was only forced or pressured to resign which is tantamount to illegal dismissal (Casa Cebuana Inc. and Paulin vs. Leuterio, G.R. 176040, September 4, 2009)

Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law (Vols. I and II) are now available. Call tel. 7249445. –Jose C. Sison (The Philippine Star)

*      *      *

E-mail at: jcson@pldtdsl.net