Republic of the
Supreme Court
MANOLO A. PEÑAFLOR,
Petitioner, -
versus
- OUTDOOR
CLOTHING MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, NATHANIEL T. SYFU, President, MEDYLENE M.
DEMOGENA, Finance Manager, and PAUL LEE, Chairman, Respondents. |
G.R. No.
177114
Present: CARPIO, J.,
Chairperson, BRION, ABAD, and PEREZ, JJ. Promulgated: April 13, 2010 |
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
|
|
R E S O L U T I O N
|
|
|
|
|
|
BRION, J.: |
|
In our Decision of
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Peñaflor was hired as probationary HRD
Manager of Outdoor Clothing on
On appeal, the National Labor
Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed
the labor arbiter’s ruling in its
The Court’s
Our January 21, 2010 decision focused
on resolving the issue of whether Peñaflor’s resignation from Outdoor
Clothing was voluntary or a forced one, the latter making it a
constructive dismissal equivalent to an illegal dismissal. We found it crucial to determine whether
Peñaflor filed his resignation letter before or after the appointment of
Buenaobra as concurrent HRD and Accounting Manager. If the resignation was submitted before Syfu’s appointment of Buenaobra,
little support would exist for Peñaflor’s allegation of constructive dismissal,
as the appointment would merely be intended to cover the vacancy created by
Peñaflor’s resignation. If however the
resignation was made after the
appointment of Buenaobra, then factual basis exists to consider Peñaflor as
constructively dismissed by Outdoor Clothing, as the resignation would be a
response to the unacceptable appointment of another person to a position he
still occupied.
Peñaflor claimed that he filed his undated resignation letter on the very same date he made his
resignation effective – March 15, 2000.
On the other hand, Outdoor Clothing contended that the letter was
submitted on
a.
the
b.
the
c.
the
Our analysis of the records led us to
conclude that Peñaflor submitted his resignation on
We
considered suspicious Outdoor Clothing’s above memoranda because these were
only presented to the NLRC on appeal, but not before the labor arbiter. They were not even mentioned in Outdoor
Clothing’s position paper filed with the labor arbiter. The failure to present them and to justify this
failure are significant considering that these are clinching pieces of evidence
that allowed the NLRC to justify the reversal of the labor arbiter’s decision.
The
surrounding circumstances of the issuance of these memoranda also cast doubts on
their authenticity. Although the memoranda
directly concerned Peñaflor, he was never informed of their contents nor given copies. While the March 10, 2000 memorandum bore
signatures of its recipients, there were no marks on the March 1 and 3, 2000
memoranda indicating that their intended recipients actually received them on
the date they were issued. It was
likewise strange that Peñaflor’s resignation and Buenaobra’s appointment would
be kept under wraps from the supposed filing of Peñaflor’s resignation letter
on March 1, 2000 up to Syfu’s issuance of the March 10, 2000 office memorandum,
since the turnover of responsibilities and work load alone to a successor in a
small company such as Outdoor Clothing would have prevented the resignation from
being kept a secret.
We also considered the timeliness of
Peñaflor’s resignation. It was highly unlikely for Peñaflor to
resign on March 1, 2000, as claimed by Outdoor Corporation, considering that he
would have become a regular employee by that time. It did not appear logical that an
employee would tender his resignation on the very same day he was entitled by
law to be considered a regular employee, especially when downsizing was taking
place and he could have availed of its benefits if separated from the services
as a regular employee.
Considering the above circumstances,
and applying basic labor law principles, the Court ruled that Peñaflor was
constructively dismissed from his employment with Outdoor Clothing. We thus reversed the CA’s decision and resolution and
reinstated the decision of the labor arbiter which found the respondents
(Outdoor Clothing and its corporate officers) jointly and severally liable to
pay Peñaflor backwages, illegally deducted salaries, proportionate 13th
month pay, attorney’s fees, moral and exemplary damages.
THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Outdoor Clothing now
moves for the reconsideration of the Court’s January 21, 2010 Decision. It alleges that the Court erred in declaring that
Peñaflor was constructively dismissed from his employment despite his
submission of an “irrevocable resignation” letter. It also claims that the Court erred in
holding all the respondents jointly and severally liable to pay Peñaflor the
salaries and damages awarded in his favor.
Outdoor Clothing maintains
that Peñaflor’s resignation was voluntary; Peñaflor resigned because he wanted
to disassociate himself from a company that was experiencing severe financial
difficulty and to focus on his teaching job.
Indeed, Peñaflor’s own letter stating his decision to irrevocably
resign from his employment with Outdoor Clothing was a clear indication
that he was not forced to leave the company.
Outdoor Clothing
also relies heavily on the three memoranda it presented before the NLRC to support
its claim of Peñaflor’s voluntary resignation.
Although belatedly filed, Outdoor Clothing claims there is nothing in
the rules which disallows the filing of new documents before the NLRC. “Submission of additional documents, albeit
belatedly done, should always be looked upon with liberality especially when
the same was important for any factual determination of the case.”[1]
Since it was
Peñaflor who filed the resignation letter, Outdoor Clothing posits that the
burden of proving that the resignation was involuntary rests on Peñaflor. The evidence presented by Peñaflor simply
failed to overcome this burden and thus, his resignation should be deemed
voluntary and should absolve Outdoor Clothing of any liability for illegal
dismissal.
Additionally,
Outdoor Clothing asserts that the Court erred in reinstating the labor
arbiter’s decision which ordered all the respondents jointly and severally liable for the sums due to Peñaflor. There was nothing in the decision of the
Court or even those of the CA and the administrative bodies finding Outdoor
Clothing’s corporate officers Syfu, Medylene Demogena (Demogena), and Paul Lee (Lee)
to have personally acted in bad faith or with malice with respect to Peñaflor’s
resignation. Assuming Outdoor Clothing is indeed liable to
Peñaflor for illegal dismissal, it would be legally out of line to consider its
corporate officers solidarily liable with the company without a finding of bad
faith or malice on their part.
THE COURT’S RULING
Other than the issue of solidary liability of the respondents
in the present case, Outdoor Clothing raises no new matter that would merit a
reconsideration of the Court’s January 21, 2010 Decision.
Peñaflor’s resignation letter read:
Mr.
Nathaniel Y. Syfu
Chief
Corporate Officer
Outdoor
Clothing Manufacturing Corporation
Sir:
Please
accept my irrevocable resignation effective at the close of office on
Thank you.
Very truly
yours,
Manolo A.
Peñaflor[2]
While the letter states
that Peñaflor’s resignation was irrevocable, it does not necessarily signify that
it was also voluntarily executed. Precisely
because of the attendant hostile and discriminatory working environment, Peñaflor
decided to permanently sever his ties with Outdoor Clothing. This falls squarely within the concept of
constructive dismissal that jurisprudence defines, among others, as
involuntarily resignation due to the harsh, hostile, and unfavorable conditions
set by the employer. It arises when a clear
discrimination, insensibility, or disdain by an employer exists and has become unbearable
to the employee.[3] The gauge for constructive dismissal is
whether a reasonable person in the employee’s position would feel compelled to
give up his employment under the prevailing circumstances.[4]
With the appointment of Buenaobra to the
position he then still occupied, Peñaflor felt that he was being eased out and this
perception made him decide to leave the company.
The fact of filing a resignation letter alone does not shift
the burden of proving that the employee’s dismissal was for a just and valid
cause from the employer to the employee.
In Mora v. Avesco,[5]
we ruled that should the employer interpose the defense of resignation, it is
still incumbent upon the employer to prove that the employee voluntarily
resigned. To our mind, Outdoor Clothing did not discharge
this burden by belatedly presenting the three memoranda it relied on. If these memoranda were authentic, they would
have shown that Peñaflor’s resignation preceded the appointment of Buenaobra. Thus, they would be evidence supporting the claim
of voluntariness of Peñaflor’s resignation and should have been presented early
on in the case – any lawyer or layman by simple logic can be expected to know
this. Outdoor Clothing however raised
them only before the NLRC when they had lost the case before the labor arbiter and
now conveniently attributes the failure to do so to its former counsel. Outddor Clothing’s belated explanation as
expressed in its motion for reconsideration, to our mind, is a submission we
cannot accept for serious consideration.
We find it significant that Peñaflor attacked the belated presentation
of these memoranda in his Answer to Outdoor Clothing’s Memoranda of Appeal with
the NLRC, but records do not show that Outdoor Clothing ever satisfactorily countered
Peñaflor’s arguments. It was not until
we pointed out Outdoor Clothing’s failure to explain its belated presentation
of the memoranda in our
Whatever doubts that remain in our minds on the credibility
of the parties’ evidence should, by the law’s dictate, be settled in favor of
the working man. Our ruling that
Peñaflor was constructively dismissed from his employment with Outdoor Clothing
therefore stands.
We modify, however, our ruling on the extent of liability of
Outdoor Clothing and its co-respondents.
A
corporation, as a juridical entity, may act only through its directors,
officers and employees. Obligations
incurred as a result of the directors’ and officers’ acts as corporate agents,
are not their personal liability but the direct responsibility of the
corporation they represent. As a rule,
they are only solidarily liable with the corporation for the illegal
termination of services of employees if they acted with malice or bad
faith. In the present case, malice or
bad faith on the part of the Syfu, Demogena, and Lee, as corporate officers of
Outdoor Clothing, was not sufficiently proven to justify a ruling holding them solidarily liable with Outdoor Clothing.[6]
WHEREFORE, we PARTIALLY GRANT respondents’ motion for
reconsideration and MODIFY our Decision dated
a.
backwages computed from the time of
constructive dismissal up to the time of the finality of the Court’s
Resolution;
b.
separation pay, due to the strained
relations between the parties, equivalent to the petitioner’s one month’s
salary;
c.
illegally deducted salary
for six days, as computed by the labor arbiter;
d.
proportionate 13th
month pay;
e.
attorney’s fees, moral and exemplary damages in the amount of
P100,000.00; and
f.
costs against the respondent corporation.
SO ORDERED.
ARTURO
D. BRION
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
|
ANTONIO
T. CARPIO Associate Justice Chairperson |
|
|
MARIANO
C. Associate Justice |
ROBERTO
A. ABAD Associate Justice |
|
JOSE
Associate Justice |
|
ATTESTATION
I
attest 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.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
CERTIFICATION
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Chief
Justice