FIRST
DIVISION
ENGRACIO A. GUERZON, JR., G.R. No. 170266
LILIAN E. CRUZ and
JOSEFINA O. BAUYON, Petitioners,
Present:
PUNO,
C.J., Chairperson,
CORONA,
-
v e r s u s - CARPIO MORALES,*
NACHURA** and
LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO, JJ.
PASIG INDUSTRIES, INC.,
MASAHIRO FUKADA and
YOSHIKITSU FUJITA,
Respondents.
Promulgated:
September
12, 2008
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
R E S O L U T I O N
CORONA, J.:
Petitioners
Engracio A. Guerzon, Jr., Lilian E. Cruz and Josefina O. Bauyon were employees
of respondent Pasig Industries, Inc. (PII) stationed in its Makati office. Guerzon was PII’s export/import manager for 21
years; Cruz was the company’s chief accountant for 20 years and Bauyon was a
member of PII’s accounting staff since 1989.
In
1995, respondent Yoshikitsu Fujita[1] informed
petitioners that PII’s parent company had decided to close the Makati office. To
streamline operations, functions performed by the Makati office would be transferred
to its facilities in the Bataan Export Processing Zone. For this reason, petitioners
were given the option to resign, in which case they would be entitled to a special
separation package (SSP) equivalent to one-month basic salary for each year of
service.[2]
Petitioners decided to resign but requested
a recomputation of their respective separation pay based on the monthly gross
pay (i.e., basic pay plus all allowances). PII, through Fujita, acceded[3] and
accordingly paid Guerzon, P548,100;[4] Cruz, P414,500.22[5] and Bauyon,
P10,219.66 on
September 25, 1995.[6]
Despite voluntarily availing of the
SSP, petitioners filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and payment of
separation pay, retirement benefits, leave pay and 13th month pay
against PII, its president Masahiro Fukada and Fujita in the National Labor
Relations Commission (NLRC) on September 27, 1995.[7]
Because petitioners filed the
complaint two days after they were “terminated,” the labor arbiter found
respondents guilty of illegal dismissal. Accordingly, he awarded backwages,
separation pay and attorneys’ fees to petitioners. [8]
Respondents appealed.
The NLRC found that petitioners
voluntarily accepted the terms of the SSP offered by PII. It noted that they
negotiated to improve PII’s offered SSP. Thus, the NLRC reversed the decision
of the labor arbiter.[9]
Aggrieved, petitioners filed a
petition for certiorari[10] in the Court
of Appeals (CA) asserting that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in
reversing the decision of the labor arbiter. The CA, however, dismissed the
petition.[11]
Petitioners moved for reconsideration but it was denied.[12]
Hence, petitioners availed of this
recourse contending that the CA erred in affirming the decision of the NLRC. Respondents
allegedly failed to prove that PII had been incurring losses to justify its
reorganization. They claimed they were dismissed without just or authorized
cause.
We deny the petition.
Petitioners held responsible
positions in PII. Employees of their educational backgrounds and professional
standing do not easily relinquish their legal rights unless they intend to.[13] In
fact, petitioners even bargained to improve the terms of the SSP and, after
successfully doing so, voluntarily resigned from PII. [14]
Consequently, whether the streamlining
of PII’s operations constituted an authorized cause for petitioners’
termination became immaterial in view of their voluntary resignation.[15]
ACCORDINGLY, the petition is hereby DENIED.
Costs against petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
Chief Justice
Chairperson
Associate Justice Associate Justice
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate Justice
Pursuant to Section 13,
Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the above
resolution had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
Chief Justice
* As replacement of Justice Antonio T. Carpio who is on official leave per Special Order No. 515.
** As replacement of Justice Adolfo S. Azcuna who is on official leave per Special Order No. 518.
[1] PII managing director.
[2] Letter dated July 20, 1995. Rollo, p. 72.
Compare Labor Code, Art. 283. (Article 283 of the Labor Code requires the employer to serve a written notice on the workers and the Secretary of Labor at least one month before the effective date of termination. Moreover, in cases of closures or cessations or undertaking not due to serious business losses or financial reverses, the separation pay shall be equivalent to one month pay or at least one-half pay for every year of service, whichever is higher. Thus, PII offered petitioners terms better than what was required by the law.)
[3] Letters dated September 15, 1995. Rollo, pp. 51-53.
[5] Basic pay P17,100
Allowance 5,500
SEPARATION PAY P22,600
x 20 years = P452,000.00
Less: Cocolife loan (37,499.78)
Amount
received P414,500.22
[6] Basic pay P8,300 x
6 years
and 3 months =
Separation pay P51,879.00
Less: Cocolife loan (41,659.34)
Amount
received P10,219.66
[7] Docketed as NLRC NCR Case No. 00-0906558-95.
[8] Decision dated April 24, 1998 penned by Felipe P. Pati, rollo, pp. 76-83.
Petitioners appealed the April 24, 1998 decision in the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). The NLRC, however, found that said decision failed to dispose of Guerzon’s claims for compensation, per diem and profit share. Thus, it remanded the case to labor arbiter in its June 17, 1999 decision.
Labor arbiter Pati, upon the motion of respondents, inhibited himself. The case was assigned to labor arbiter Dolores M. Peralta-Beley.
On February 28, 2003, labor arbiter Peralta-Beley rendered a decision affirming the findings of facts of labor arbiter Pati. Respondents were reinstated to their former positions without loss of seniority rights and privileges in addition to the payment of backwages from the time they were illegally dismissed up to the date of their actual reinstatement.
[9] Penned by Commissioner Angelita A. Gacutan and concurred in by Presiding Commissioner Raul T. Aquino and Commissioner Victoriano R. Calaycay of the Second Division of the NLRC. Dated August 31, 2004. Id., pp. 152-167.
[10] Docketed as CA-SP G.R. No. 88737.
[11] Decision penned by Associate Justice Eliezer R. de los Santos and concurred in by Associate Justices Eugenio S. Labitoria and Arturo D. Brion (now a member of this Court) of the Third Division of the Court of Appeals. Dated August 24, 2005. Rollo, pp. 26-34.
[12] Resolution dated October 20, 2005. Id., p. 44.
[13] Globe Telecom v. Crisologo, G.R. No. 174644, 10 August 2007, 529 SCRA 811, 818.
[14] Samaniego
v. NLRC, G.R. No. 93095, 3 June 1991, 198 SCRA 111, 118-119.
[15] Id.