Forced resignation

When it comes to employee termination cases, the employer bears the burden of proving that the dismissal is for a just and valid cause; and in case of doubts in the evidence presented by the employer and the employee, the doubts are resolved in favor of the employee. The immediate subsequent action of the employee after he stopped working also determines whether he abandoned the post, voluntarily resigned or was dismissed. These are the principles applied in this case of Noli.

Noli was hired on September 2, 1999 as probationary Human Resources Department (HRD) Manager of a clothing manufacturer (OCM). For the first few months his relationship with the company went well. But his woes began when the Company Vice President for Operations with whom he was closely associated left the company after a big fight with its Chief Corporate Officer, Mr. So.

His two staff members were retrenched thus leaving him as the only personnel in HRD and compelling him to perform the clerical, administrative and liaison work in various government offices following up the processing of company papers. He was even required to attend to the hospitalization needs of one OCM employee injured in a bombing incident and subsequenty got a salary deduction for the six days he attended to the victim.

On March 13, 2000 after he returned from field work, he was informed that Mr. So had already appointed Danny, the Accounting Manager as the concurrent and new HRD manager. This information was confirmed by Mr. So’s memorandum dated March 10, 2000, addressed to all employees stating that Danny was the new HRD manager. Noli was so surprised and felt betrayed and discouraged but his efforts to talk to Mr. So proved futile. Under the circumstances, Noli resigned from his employment on March 15, 2000. Simultaneously, he submitted a letter of resignation on which however he forgot to put a date. Then he filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before the Labor Arbiter claiming that he had been constructively dismissed and thus prayed for reinstatement with back wages, illegally deducted salaries, damages and attorney’s fees.

For its defense, OCM alleged that Noli voluntarily resigned. OCM claimed that the resignation letter was submitted by Noli on March 1, 2000 which was directly opposite to Noli’s claim that he wrote and filed it on March 15, 2000, the same date he made his resignation effective. Thus, according to OCM, it was by virtue of this undated letter that Mr. So issued a memorandum on March 10, 2000 informing the employees of the appointment of Danny as the concurrent HRD Manager to fill the vacancy caused by Noli’s resignation.

On August 15, 2001, the Labor Arbiter (LA) ruled in favor of Noli. The LA said that Noli has been forced to resign equivalent to a constructive illegal dismissal. Thus the LA ordered OCM to reinstate Noli to his former or an equivalent position and to pay him his illegally deducted salary for six days, proportionate 13th month pay, attorney’s fees, moral and exemplary damages. Was the LA correct?

Yes. The question of whether Noli’s resignation was voluntary or forced hinges on the issue of whether he filed his resignation letter on March 1, 2000 as claimed by OCM or on March 15, 2000 as claimed by Noli, in other words, before or after the appointment of Danny as the new concurrent HRD manager to replace him. This question arises because his resignation letter is undated.

It is more consistent with human experience that Noli indeed learned of the appointment of Danny on March 13, 2000 and reacted to this development through his resignation letter submitted on March 15, 2000 after realizing that he would only face hostility and frustration in his working environment. Three very basic labor law principles support this conclusion and militate against OCM’s case.

The first is that the employer bears the burden of proving that the employee’s dismissal was for a just and valid cause. That Noli filed a letter of resignation does not help the company’s case as other than the fact of resignation, the company must still prove that he voluntarily resigned. There can be no valid resignation where it was made under compulsion or under circumstances approximating compulsion as when the employee’s act of handing his resignation was in reaction to circumstances leaving him no alternative but to resign. In this case the evidence does not support the voluntariness of Noli’s resignation.

Another basic principle is that doubts about the evidence presented by the employer and the employee must be resolved in favor of the employee. Thus in this case given the hostile and discriminatory working environment in which Noli found himself particularly the escalating acts of unfairness against him that culminated in the appointment of another HRD manager, he must have been indeed constructively dismissed. Where no less than the chief corporate officer was against him he had no alternative but to resign.

Last but not least, the employee’s reaction to the termination of his employment is also significant. In this case, Noli sought almost immediate official recourse to contest his separation from the service through a complaint for illegal dismissal. This is not the act of one who voluntarily resigned; his immediate complaint shows that he deeply felt he had been wronged (Penaflor vs. Outdoor Clothing Manufacturers Corp. etc. G.R. 177114, January 21, 2010).

(Attention: All UST HIGH SCHOOL Alumni! Grand reunion on Saturday, February 20, 2010 at Plaza Mayor, in front of Main Building UST Campus, starting 4 pm. Tickets are available at the Principal’s Office or for ticket reservations text 0939-6519221or 0915-4891535 or e-mail usthsaa@yahoo.com. Come and let us enjoy the fiesta of nostalgia while helping current USTHS Students finish their studies and earn their own USTHS diplomas.)

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)