GOMA vs. Pamplona Plantation DECISION NACHURA, J.

: For review is the Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated August 27, 2 ! granting respondent "a#plona "lantation, $nc%s petition for certiorari and its &esolution[2] dated 'ove#(er 11, 2 ! den)ing petitioner *ienvenido +o#as #otion for reconsideration, in CA,+%&% -" 'o% 7./02% "etitioner co##enced[!] the instant suit () filing a co#plaint for illegal dis#issal, underpa)#ent of wages, non,pa)#ent of pre#iu# pa) for holida) and rest da), five (1) da)s incentive leave pa), da#ages and attorne)s fees, against the respondent% 2he case was filed with the -u(,&egional Ar(itration *ranch 'o% 3$$ of Du#aguete Cit)% "etitioner clai#ed that he wor4ed as a carpenter at the 5acienda "a#plona since 10016 that he wor4ed fro# 77! a%#% to 127 noon and fro# 17 p%#% to 17 p%#% dail) with a salar) rate of "0 % a da) paid wee4l)6 and that he wor4ed continuousl) until 1007 when he was not given an) wor4 assign#ent% [.] 8n a clai# that he was a regular e#plo)ee, petitioner alleged to have (een illegall) dis#issed when the respondent refused without 9ust cause to give hi# wor4 assign#ent% 2hus, he pra)ed for (ac4wages, salar) differential, service incentive leave pa), da#ages and attorne)s fees%[1] 8n the other hand, respondent denied having hired the petitioner as its regular e#plo)ee% $t instead argued that petitioner was hired () a certain Anto) Caaveral, the #anager of the hacienda at the ti#e it was owned () :r% *ower and leased () :anuel +on;ales, a 9ai,alai pelotari 4nown as <(arra% [=] &espondent added that it was not o(liged to a(sor( the e#plo)ees of the for#er owner% $n 1001, "a#plona "lantation >eisure Corporation ("">C) was created for the operation of tourist resorts, hotels and (ars% "etitioner, thus, rendered service in the construction of the facilities of "">C% $f at all, petitioner was a pro9ect (ut not a regular e#plo)ee% [7] 8n ?une 2/, 1000, >a(or Ar(iter +eoffre) "% 3illaher#osa dis#issed the case for lac4 of #erit% [/] 2he >a(or Ar(iter concluded that petitioner was hired () the for#er owner, hence, was not an e#plo)ee of the respondent% Conse@uentl), his #one) clai#s were denied% [0] 8n appeal to the 'ational >a(or &elations Co##ission ('>&C), the petitioner o(tained favora(le 9udg#ent when the tri(unal reversed and set aside the >a(or Ar(iters decision% 2he dispositive portion of the '>&C decision reads7 A5B&BF8&B, the Decision of the >a(or Ar(iter is here() -B2 A-$DB and a new one is here() issued 8&DB&$'+ the respondent, "a#plona "lantation $ncorporated, the following7 1) to reinstate the co#plainant, *$B'3B'$D8 D% +8:A to his for#er position i##ediatel) without loss of seniorit) rights and other privileges6 2) to pa) the sa#e co#plainant 2AB>3B 258C-A'D 25&BB 5C'D&BD F$F2<,'$'B "B-8- ("12,!10% ) in salar) differentials6 !) to pa) to the sa#e co#plainant 8'B 5C'D&BD 8'B 258C-A'D -$D 5C'D&BD -$D2< "B-8- ("1 1,== % ) in (ac4wages to (e updated until actual reinstate#ent6 and .) to pa) attorne)s fee in the a#ount of B>B3B' 258C-A'D F8C& 5C'D&BD 2A8 "B-8- ("11,. 2% ) which is e@uivalent to ten percent

(1 E) of the total 9udg#ent award% 2he respondent is further ordered to pa) the aggregate a#ount of 8'B 5C'D&BD F8C&2BB' 258C-A'D A'D '$'B2BB' "B-8("11., 10% ) to the co#plainant through the cashier of this Co##ission within ten (1 ) da)s fro# receipt hereof% -8 8&DB&BD%[1 ] &espondents #otion for reconsideration was denied () the '>&C on -epte#(er 0, 2 2% [11]

cralaw2he '>&C upheld the eFistence of an e#plo)er,e#plo)ee relationship, ratiocinating that it was difficult to (elieve that a si#ple carpenter fro# far awa) "a#plona would go to Du#aguete Cit) to hire a co#petent law)er to help hi# secure 9ustice if he did not (elieve that his right as a la(orer had (een violated%[12] $t added that the creation of the "">C re@uired the tre#endous tas4 of constructing hotels, inns, restaurants, (ars, (outi@ues and service shops, thus involving eFtensive carpentr) wor4% As an old carpentr) hand in the old corporation, the possi(ilit) of petitioners e#plo)#ent was great% [1!] 2he '>&C li4ewise held that the respondent should have presented its e#plo)#ent records if onl) to show that petitioner was not included in its list of e#plo)ees6 its failure to do so was fatal% [1.] Considering that petitioner wor4ed for the respondent for a period of two )ears, he was a regular e#plo)ee%[11] cralawAggrieved, respondent instituted a special civil action for certiorari under &ule =1 (efore the Court of Appeals which granted the sa#e6 and conse@uentl) annulled and set aside the '>&C decision% 2he CA disposed, as follows7 cralawWHEREFORE, pre#ises considered, the instant petition is GRANTED. 2he assailed decision of the '>&C dated 8cto(er 2., 2 , as well as the &esolution dated -epte#(er 0, 2 2 in '>&C Case 'o% 3, //2,00, &A* 3$$, //,0/,D are here() ANNU ED an! SET ASIDE. 2he co#plaint is ordered DISMISSED. cralaw-8 8&DB&BD%[1=] Contrar) to the '>&Cs finding, the CA concluded that there was no e#plo)er,e#plo)ee relationship% 2he CA stressed that petitioner having raised a positive aver#ent, had the (urden of proving the eFistence of an e#plo)er,e#plo)ee relationship% &espondent, therefore, had no o(ligation to prove its negative aver#ent%[17] 2he appellate court further held that while the respondents (usiness re@uired the perfor#ance of occasional repairs and carpentr) wor4, the retention of a carpenter in its pa)roll was not necessar) or desira(le in the conduct of its usual (usiness% [1/] >astl), although the petitioner was an e#plo)ee of the for#er owner of the hacienda, the respondent was not re@uired to a(sor( such e#plo)ees (ecause e#plo)#ent contracts are in personam and (inding onl) (etween the parties%[10] "etitioner now co#es (efore this Court raising the sole issue7 A5B25B& 8& '82 25B DBC$-$8' 8F [25B] C8C&2 8F A""BA>DA2BD AC+C-2 27, 2 !, &B3B&-$'+ A'D -B22$'+ A-$DB 25B '>&C (Fourth Division, Ce(u Cit)) &C>$'+ 25A2 25B "B2$2$8'B& AA- '82 $>>B+A>>< D$-:$--BD A- 5B AA- '82 A' B:">8<BB 8F &B-"8'DB'2, $- C8'2&A&< 28 >AA A'D ?C&$-"&CDB'CB 8' A5$C5 $2 AA- *A-BD, A'D '82 $' C8'-8'A'CB A$25 25B B3$DB'CB 8' &BC8&D%[2 ] cralaw2he disposition of this petition rests on the resolution of the following @uestions7 1) $s the petitioner a regular e#plo)ee of the respondentG 2) $f so, was he illegall) dis#issed fro# e#plo)#entG and !) $s he entitled to his #onetar) clai#sG

cralaw"etitioner insists that he was a regular e#plo)ee of the respondent corporation% 2he respondent, on the other hand, counters that it did not hire the petitioner, hence, he was never an e#plo)ee, #uch less a regular one% *oth the >a(or Ar(iter and the CA concluded that there was no e#plo)er,e#plo)ee relationship (etween the petitioner and respondent% 2he) (ased their conclusion on the alleged ad#ission of the petitioner that he was previousl) hired () the for#er owner of the hacienda% 2hus, the) rationali;ed that since the respondent was not o(liged to a(sor( all the e#plo)ees of the for#er owner, petitioners clai# of e#plo)#ent could not (e sustained% 2he '>&C, on the other hand, upheld petitioners clai# of regular e#plo)#ent (ecause of the respondents failure to present its e#plo)#ent records% 2he eFistence of an e#plo)er,e#plo)ee relationship involves a @uestion of fact which is well within the province of the CA to deter#ine% 'onetheless, given the realit) that the CAs findings are at odds with those of the '>&C, the Court is constrained to pro(e into the attendant circu#stances as appearing on record%[21] cralawA thorough eFa#ination of the records co#pels this Court to reach a conclusion different fro# that of the CA% $t is true that petitioner ad#itted having (een e#plo)ed () the for#er owner prior to 100! or (efore the respondent too4 over the ownership and #anage#ent of the plantation, however, he li4ewise alleged having (een hired () the respondent as a carpenter in 1001 and having wor4ed as such for two )ears until 1007% 'ota(l), at the outset, respondent categoricall) denied that it hired the petitioner% <et, in its petition filed (efore the CA, respondent #ade this ad#ission% cralaw"rivate respondent [petitioner herein] cannot (e considered a regular e#plo)ee since the nature of his wor4 is #erel) pro9ect in character in relation to the construction of the facilities of the "a#plona "lantation >eisure Corporation% cralaw5e is a pro9ect e#plo)ee as he was hired 1) for a specific pro9ect or underta4ing, and 2) the co#pletion or ter#ination of such pro9ect or underta4ing has (een deter#ined at the ti#e of engage#ent of the e#plo)ee% F F F% cralawF F F F cralaw$n other words, as regards those wor4ers who wor4ed in 1001 specificall) in connection with the construction of the facilities of "a#plona "lantation >eisure Corporation, their e#plo)#ent was definitel) te#porar) in character and not regular e#plo)#ent% 2heir e#plo)#ent was dee#ed ter#inated () operation of law the #o#ent the) had finished the 9o( or activit) under which the) were e#plo)ed% 2hus, departing fro# its initial stand that it never hired petitioner, the respondent eventuall) ad#itted the eFistence of e#plo)er,e#plo)ee relationship (efore the CA% $t, however, @ualified such ad#ission () clai#ing that it was "">C that hired the petitioner and that the nature of his e#plo)#ent therein was that of a pro9ect and not regular e#plo)ee% "arentheticall), this Court in Pamplona Plantation Company, Inc. v. Tinghil [2!] and Pamplona Plantation Company v. Acosta[2.] had pierced the veil of corporate fiction and declared that the two corporations,[21] "">C and the herein respondent, are one and the sa#e% *) setting forth these defenses, respondent, in effect, ad#itted that petitioner wor4ed for it, al(eit in a different capacit)% -uch an allegation is in the nature of a negative pregnant, a denial pregnant with the ad#ission of the su(stantial facts in the pleadings responded to which are not s@uarel) denied, and

a#ounts to an ac4nowledg#ent that petitioner was indeed e#plo)ed () respondent% [2=] 2he e#plo)#ent relationship having (een esta(lished, the neFt @uestion we #ust answer is7 $s the petitioner a regular or pro9ect e#plo)eeG Ae find the petitioner to (e a regular e#plo)ee% Article 2/ of the >a(or Code, as a#ended, provides7 ART. "#$. REGU AR AND CASUA EMP O%MENT. & 2he provisions of written agree#ent to the contrar) notwithstanding and regardless of the oral agree#ent of the parties, an e#plo)#ent shall (e dee#ed to (e regular where the e#plo)ee has (een engaged to perfor# activities which are usuall) necessar) or desira(le in the usual (usiness or trade of the e#plo)er, eFcept where the e#plo)#ent has (een fiFed for a specific pro9ect or underta4ing, the co#pletion or ter#ination of which has (een deter#ined at the ti#e of the engage#ent of the e#plo)ee or where the wor4 or service to (e perfor#ed is seasonal in nature and the e#plo)#ent is for the duration of the season% An e#plo)#ent shall (e dee#ed to (e casual if it is not covered () the preceding paragraph7 Provided, 2hat, an) e#plo)ee who has rendered at least one )ear of service, whether such service is continuous or (ro4en, shall (e considered a regular e#plo)ee with respect to the activit) in which he is e#plo)ed and his e#plo)#ent shall continue while such activit) eFists% As can (e gleaned fro# this provision, there are two 4inds of regular e#plo)ees, na#el)7 (1) those who are engaged to perfor# activities which are usuall) necessar) or desira(le in the usual (usiness or trade of the e#plo)er6 and (2) those who have rendered at least one )ear of service, whether continuous or (ro4en, with respect to the activit) in which the) are e#plo)ed% [27] -i#pl) stated, regular e#plo)ees are classified into7 regular e#plo)ees () nature of wor46 and regular e#plo)ees () )ears of service% 2he for#er refers to those e#plo)ees who perfor# a particular activit) which is necessar) or desira(le in the usual (usiness or trade of the e#plo)er, regardless of their length of service6 while the latter refers to those e#plo)ees who have (een perfor#ing the 9o(, regardless of the nature thereof, for at least a )ear% [2/] $f the e#plo)ee has (een perfor#ing the 9o( for at least one )ear, even if the perfor#ance is not continuous or #erel) inter#ittent, the law dee#s the repeated and continuing need for its perfor#ance as sufficient evidence of the necessit), if not indispensa(ilit), of that activit) to the (usiness%[20] &espondent is engaged in the #anage#ent of the "a#plona "lantation as well as in the operation of tourist resorts, hotels, inns, restaurants, etc% "etitioner, on the other hand, was engaged to perfor# carpentr) wor4% 5is services were needed for a period of two )ears until such ti#e that the respondent decided not to give hi# wor4 assign#ent an)#ore% 8wing to his length of service, petitioner (eca#e a regular e#plo)ee, () operation of law% &espondent argues that, even assu#ing that petitioner can (e considered an e#plo)ee, he cannot (e classified as a regular e#plo)ee, (ut #erel) as a pro9ect e#plo)ee whose services were hired onl) with respect to a specific 9o( and onl) while that specific 9o( eFisted% A pro9ect e#plo)ee is assigned to carr) out a specific pro9ect or underta4ing the duration and scope of which are specified at the ti#e the e#plo)ee is engaged in the pro9ect% A pro9ect is a 9o( or underta4ing which is distinct, separate and identifia(le fro# the usual or regular underta4ings of the co#pan)% A pro9ect e#plo)ee is assigned to a pro9ect which (egins and ends at deter#ined or deter#ina(le ti#es%[! ]

cralaw2he principal test used to deter#ine whether e#plo)ees are pro9ect e#plo)ees as distinguished fro# regular e#plo)ees, is whether or not the e#plo)ees were assigned to carr) out a specific pro9ect or underta4ing, the duration or scope of which was specified at the ti#e the e#plo)ees were engaged for that pro9ect%[!1] $n this case, apart fro# respondents (are allegation that petitioner was a pro9ect e#plo)ee, it had not shown that petitioner was infor#ed that he would (e assigned to a specific pro9ect or underta4ing% 'either was it esta(lished that he was infor#ed of the duration and scope of such pro9ect or underta4ing at the ti#e of his engage#ent% cralaw:ost i#portant of all, (ased on the records, respondent did not report the ter#ination of petitioners supposed pro9ect e#plo)#ent to the Depart#ent of >a(or and B#plo)#ent (D8>B)% Depart#ent 8rder 'o% 10 (as well as the old "olic) $nstructions 'o% 2 ) re@uires e#plo)ers to su(#it a report of an e#plo)ees ter#ination to the nearest pu(lic e#plo)#ent office ever) ti#e the e#plo)#ent is ter#inated due to a co#pletion of a pro9ect% &espondents failure to file ter#ination reports, particularl) on the cessation of petitioners e#plo)#ent, was an indication that the petitioner was not a pro9ect (ut a regular e#plo)ee%[!2] cralawAe stress herein that the law overrides such conditions which are pre9udicial to the interest of the wor4er whose wea4 (argaining position necessitates the succor of the -tate% Ahat deter#ines whether a certain e#plo)#ent is regular or otherwise is not the will or word of the e#plo)er, to which the wor4er oftenti#es ac@uiesces% 'either is it the procedure of hiring the e#plo)ee nor the #anner of pa)ing the salar) or the actual ti#e spent at wor4% $t is the character of the activities perfor#ed () the e#plo)er in relation to the particular trade or (usiness of the e#plo)er, ta4ing into account all the circu#stances, including the length of ti#e of its perfor#ance and its continued eFistence% +iven the attendant circu#stances in the case at (ar, it is o(vious that one )ear after he was e#plo)ed () the respondent, petitioner (eca#e a regular e#plo)ee () operation of law% [!!] As to the @uestion of whether petitioner was illegall) dis#issed, we answer in the affir#ative% cralawAell,esta(lished is the rule that regular e#plo)ees en9o) securit) of tenure and the) can onl) (e dis#issed for 9ust cause and with due process, i.e., after notice and hearing% $n cases involving an e#plo)ees dis#issal, the (urden is on the e#plo)er to prove that the dis#issal was legal% 2his (urden was not a#pl) discharged () the respondent in this case% 8(viousl), petitioners dis#issal was not (ased on an) of the 9ust or authori;ed causes enu#erated under Articles 2/2,[!.] 2/![!1] and 2/.[!=] of the >a(or Code, as a#ended% After wor4ing for the respondent for a period of two )ears, petitioner was shoc4ed to find out that he was not given an) wor4 assign#ent an)#ore% 5ence, the re@uire#ent of su(stantive due process was not co#plied with% cralawApart fro# the re@uire#ent that the dis#issal of an e#plo)ee (e (ased on an) of the 9ust or authori;ed causes, the procedure laid down in *oo4 3$, &ule $, -ection 2 (d) of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, #ust (e followed%[!7] Failure to o(serve the rules is a violation of the e#plo)ees right to procedural due process% cralaw$n view of the non,o(servance of (oth su(stantive and procedural due process, in accordance with the guidelines outlined () this Court in Agabon v. National Labor Relations Commission,[!/] we declare that petitioners dis#issal fro# e#plo)#ent is illegal% [!0] cralaw 5aving shown that petitioner is a regular e#plo)ee and that his dis#issal was illegal, we now discuss the propriet) of the #onetar) clai#s of the petitioner% An illegall) dis#issed e#plo)ee is entitled to7 (1) either reinstate#ent, if via(le, or separation pa) if reinstate#ent is no longer via(le, and (2) (ac4wages%[. ] $n the instant case, we are prepared to concede the i#possi(ilit) of the reinstate#ent of petitioner considering that his position or an) e@uivalent position #a) no longer (e availa(le in view of the length of ti#e that this case has (een pending% :oreover, the protracted litigation #a) have seriousl)

a(raded the relationship of the parties so as to render reinstate#ent i#practical% Accordingl), petitioner #a) (e awarded separation pa) in lieu of reinstate#ent% [.1] "etitioners separation pa) is pegged at the a#ount e@uivalent to petitioners one (1) #onth pa), or one, half (1H2) #onth pa) for ever) )ear of service, whichever is higher, rec4oned fro# his first da) of e#plo)#ent up to finalit) of this decision% Full (ac4wages, on the other hand, should (e co#puted fro# the date of his illegal dis#issal until the finalit) of this decision% 8n petitioners entitle#ent to attorne)s fees, we #ust ta4e into account the fact that petitioner was illegall) dis#issed fro# his e#plo)#ent and that his wages and other (enefits were withheld fro# hi# without an) valid and legal (asis% As a conse@uence, he was co#pelled to file an action for the recover) of his lawful wages and other (enefits and, in the process, incurred eFpenses% 8n these (ases, the Court finds that he is entitled to attorne)s fees e@uivalent to ten percent (1 E) of the #onetar) award%[.2] >astl), we affir# the '>&Cs award of salar) differential% $n light of our foregoing dis@uisition on the illegalit) of petitioners dis#issal, and our adoption of the '>&Cs findings, suffice it to state that such issue is a @uestion of fact, and we find no cogent reason to distur( the findings of the la(or tri(unal% WHEREFORE, pre#ises considered, the petition is GRANTED% 2he Decision of the Court of Appeals dated August 27, 2 ! and its &esolution dated 'ove#(er 11, 2 ! in CA,+%&% -" 'o% 7./02 are RE'ERSED and SET ASIDE% "etitioner is found to have (een illegall) dis#issed fro# e#plo)#ent and thus, is ENTIT ED to7 1) -alar) Differential e#(odied in the '>&C decision dated 8cto(er 2., 2 in '>&C Case 'o% 3, //2,006 2) -eparation "a)6 !) *ac4wages6 and .) Attorne)s fees e@uivalent to ten percent (1 E) of the #onetar) awards% Cpon finalit) of this 9udg#ent, let the records of the case (e re#anded to the '>&C for the co#putation of the eFact a#ounts due the petitioner% SO ORDERED% (G.R. No. )*)""+, ,-l. )/, "$$#0 GREGORIO S. SA1ERO A, PETITIONER, 'S. RONA D SUARE2 AND RA%MUNDO IRASAN, ,R., RESPONDENTS. DECISION NACHURA, ,.: *efore the Court is a petition for review on certiorari under &ule .1 of the &ules of Court assailing the Decision[1] dated :arch ! , 2 1 and the &esolution [2] dated 'ove#(er 2!, 2 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA,+%&% -" 'o% 1=1 !% The Facts 2he case ste##ed fro# a Co#plaint [!] for illegal dis#issal with #one) clai#s filed on 'ove#(er 1 , 1007 () respondents against petitioner (efore the &egional Ar(itration *ranch of Davao Cit)% "etitioner is the owner and #anager of +%-% -a(erola Blectrical -ervices, a fir# engaged in the construction (usiness speciali;ing in installing electrical devices in su(division ho#es and in co##ercial and non,co##ercial (uildings% &espondents were e#plo)ed () petitioner as electricians% 2he) wor4ed fro# :onda) to -aturda) and, occasionall), on -unda)s, with a dail) wage of "11 % % &espondent &onald -uare; (-uare;) was e#plo)ed () petitioner fro# Fe(ruar) 1001 until 8cto(er 10076 while respondent &a)#undo >irasan, ?r% (>irasan) wor4ed fro# Fe(ruar) 1001 until -epte#(er

1007%[.] &espondent >irasan alleged that he was dis#issed without cause and due process% 5e was #erel) infor#ed () petitioner that his services were no longer needed without an) eFplanation wh) he was ter#inated% *oth respondents clai#ed that the) received co#pensation (elow the #ini#u# wage% 2he) were given a fiFed rate of "11 % while the #andated #ini#u# wage was "1!1% , per Aage 8rder 'o% 1 issued () the &egional 2ripartite and "roductivit) *oard of &egion D$% 2he) also alleged that the) did not receive 1!th #onth pa) for the entire period of their e#plo)#ent% [1] *oth li4ewise clai#ed pa)#ent of overti#e and service incentive leave% $n his defense, petitioner averred that respondents were part,ti#e pro9ect e#plo)ees and were e#plo)ed onl) when there were electrical 9o(s to (e done in a particular housing unit contracted () petitioner% 5e #aintained that the services of respondents as pro9ect e#plo)ees were coter#inous with each pro9ect% As pro9ect e#plo)ees, the ti#e of rendition of their services was not fiFed% 2hus, there was no practical wa) of deter#ining the appropriate co#pensation of the value of respondentsI acco#plish#ent, as their wor4 assign#ent varied depending on the needs of a specific pro9ect% [=] 8n -epte#(er 2., 100/, the >a(or Ar(iter rendered a Decision [7] dis#issing the co#plaint for lac4 of #erit% 2he >a(or Ar(iter ruled that respondents were pro9ect e#plo)ees and were not entitled to their #onetar) clai#s% 8n appeal, the 'ational >a(or &elations Co##ission ('>&C) affir#ed with #odification the findings of the >a(or Ar(iter in a &esolution [/] dated ?ul) 0, 1000% $t #aintained that respondents were pro9ect e#plo)ees of petitioner% 5owever, it declared that respondent -uare; was illegall) dis#issed fro# e#plo)#ent% $t also awarded the #onetar) clai#s of respondents% 2he dispositive portion of the &esolution reads7 A5B&BF8&B, foregoing considered, the decision on appeal is here() :8D$F$BD declaring co#plainant &8'A>D -CA&BJ illegall) dis#issed and directing respondent to pa) the following(cut)

A%
-8 8&DB&BD%[0] "etitioner filed a #otion for reconsideration% 8n 8cto(er 20, 1000, the '>&C issued a &esolution [1 ] den)ing the sa#e% A detailed co#putation of the #one) clai#s awarded to respondents was incorporated in the &esolution, su##ari;ed as follows7(cut) "etitioner filed a petition for certiorari under &ule =1 of the &ules of Court (efore the CA% "etitioner asserted that the '>&C co##itted grave a(use of discretion when it declared hi# guilt) of illegall) ter#inating respondent -uare; and in awarding (oth respondents their #onetar) clai#s% 8n :arch ! , 2 1, the CA rendered a Decision [12] dis#issing the petition for lac4 of #erit% "etitioner filed a #otion for reconsideration which, however, was denied in a &esolution [1!] dated 'ove#(er 2!, 2 1% 5ence, this petition% The Issues "etitioner su(#its the following issues for resolution7 (1) whether respondent -uare; was illegall) ter#inated, and (2) whether respondents are entitled to their #onetar) clai#s% The Ruling of the Court "etitionerIs (usiness, speciali;ing in installing electrical devices, needs electricians onl) when there are electrical devices to (e installed in su(division ho#es or (uildings covered () an appropriate contract% "etitioner, as an electrical contractor, depends for his (usiness on the contracts that he is a(le to o(tain fro# real estate developers and (uilders of (uildings% 2hus, the wor4 provided () petitioner depends on the availa(ilit) of such contracts or pro9ects% 2he duration of the e#plo)#ent of his wor4

force is not per#anent (ut coter#inous with the pro9ects to which the wor4ers are assigned% 3iewed in this conteFt, the respondents are considered as pro9ect e#plo)ees of petitioner% $ndeed, the status of respondents as pro9ect e#plo)ees was upheld () the Court of Appeals (ased on the findings of facts of the >a(or Ar(iter and the '>&C% A pro9ect e#plo)ee is one whose Ke#plo)#ent has (een fiFed for a specific pro9ect or underta4ing, the co#pletion or ter#ination of which has (een deter#ined at the ti#e of the engage#ent of the e#plo)ee or where the wor4 or service to (e perfor#ed is seasonal in nature and the e#plo)#ent is for the duration of the season%K[1.] 5owever, respondents, even if wor4ing as pro9ect e#plo)ees, en9o) securit) of tenure% -ection !, Article D$$$, of the Constitution guarantees the right of wor4ers to securit) of tenure, and (ecause of this, an e#plo)ee #a) onl) (e ter#inated for 9ust [11] or authori;ed[1=] causes that #ust co#pl) with the due process re@uire#ents[17] #andated () law% $n Archbuild asters and Construction, Inc. v. NLRC ,[1/] we held that the e#plo)#ent of a pro9ect wor4er hired for a specific phase of a construction pro9ect is understood to (e coter#inous with the co#pletion of such phase and not upon the acco#plish#ent of the whole pro9ect% A wor4er hired for a particular phase of a construction pro9ect can (e dis#issed upon the co#pletion of such phase% "ro9ect wor4ers in the construction industr) #a) also (e ter#inated as the phase of a construction pro9ect draws nearer to co#pletion when their services are no longer needed, provided the) are not replaced%
[10]

'onetheless, when a pro9ect e#plo)ee is dis#issed, such dis#issal #ust still co#pl) with the su(stantive and procedural re@uire#ents of due process% 2er#ination of his e#plo)#ent #ust (e for a lawful cause and #ust (e done in a #anner which affords hi# the proper notice and hearing% [2 ] $n this regard, we hold that respondent -uare; was illegall) ter#inated () petitioner% A pro9ect e#plo)ee #ust (e furnished a written notice of his i#pending dis#issal and #ust (e given the opportunit) to dispute the legalit) of his re#oval% [21] $n ter#ination cases, the (urden of proof rests on the e#plo)er to show that the dis#issal was for a 9ust or authori;ed cause% B#plo)ers who hire pro9ect e#plo)ees are #andated to state and prove the actual (asis for the e#plo)eeIs dis#issal once its veracit) is challenged%[22] "etitioner failed to present an) evidence to disprove the clai# of illegal dis#issal% $t was uncontested that the last wor4 of the respondents with petitionerIs co#pan) was the electrical installation in so#e housing units at the Ciudad Bsperan;a 5ousing "ro9ect% 'o evidence was presented () petitioner to show the ter#ination of the pro9ect which would 9ustif) the cessation of the wor4 of respondents% 'either was there proof that petitioner co#plied with the su(stantive and procedural re@uire#ents of due process% As to respondentsI #onetar) clai#s, we uphold the findings of the '>&C% As e#plo)er, the petitioner has the (urden of proving that the rate of pa) given to the respondents is in accordance with the #ini#u# fiFed () the law and that he paid thirteenth #onth pa), service incentive leave pa) and other #onetar) clai#s% Ae have consistentl) held that as a rule, one who pleads pa)#ent has the (urden of proving it% Bven when the plaintiff alleges non,pa)#ent, still the general rule is that the (urden rests on the defendant to prove pa)#ent, rather than on the plaintiff to prove non,pa)#ent% 2he de(tor has the (urden of showing with legal certaint) that the o(ligation has (een discharged () pa)#ent% Ahen the eFistence of a de(t is full) esta(lished () the evidence contained in the record, the (urden of proving that it has (een eFtinguished () pa)#ent devolves upon the de(tor who invo4es such a defense against the clai# of the creditor% Ahen the de(tor introduces so#e evidence of pa)#ent, the (urden of going forward with the evidence ,, as distinct fro# the general (urden of proof ,, shifts to the creditor, who is then

under a dut) of producing so#e evidence to show non,pa)#ent% [2!] $n the instant case, the (urden of proving pa)#ent of the #onetar) clai#s rests on petitioner, (eing the e#plo)er of respondents% 2his is (ecause the pertinent personnel files, pa)rolls, records, re#ittances and other si#ilar docu#ents that would show that the clai#s have (een paid are not in the possession of the wor4er (ut in the custod) and a(solute control of the e#plo)er% [2.] -adl), the petitioner failed to do so% WHEREFORE, in lieu of the foregoing, the instant petition is DENIED. 2he assailed Decision and &esolution of the Court of Appeals in CA,+%&% -" 'o% 1=1 ! are here() AFFIRMED% SO ORDERED% G.R. No. )#/34" : Nov5m657 )*, "$)$ MI ENNIUM ERECTORS CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. 'IRGI IO MAGA ANES, Respondent. DECISION CARPIO MORA ES, J.: &espondent 3irgilio :agallanes started wor4ing in 10// as a utilit) #an for >aurencito 2iu (2iu), Chief BFecutive 8fficer of :illenniu# Brectors Corporation (petitioner), 2iuLs fa#il), and Menneth Construction Corporation% 5e was assigned to different construction pro9ects underta4en () petitioner in :etro :anila, the last of which was for a (uilding in >i(is, Nue;on Cit)% $n ?ul) of 2 . he was told not to report for wor4 an)#ore allegedl) due to old age, pro#pting hi# to file on August =, 2 . an illegal dis#issal co#plaint[1] (efore the >a(or Ar(iter% $n its "osition "aper,[2] petitioner clai#ed that respondent was a pro9ect e#plo)ee who# it hired for a (uilding pro9ect in >i(is on ?anuar) ! , 2 !, to prove which it su(#itted the e#plo)#ent contract[!] signed () hi#6 that on August !, 2 ., respondentLs services were ter#inated as the pro9ect was nearing co#pletion6 and he was given financial assistance[.] in the a#ount of "2, , for which he signed a @uitclai# and waiver%[1] "etitioner li4ewise su(#itted a ter#ination report to the Depart#ent of >a(or and B#plo)#ent (D8>B) dated August 17, 2 .% &e(utting respondentLs clai# that he was e#plo)ed since 10//, petitioner contended that it was incorporated onl) in Fe(ruar) 2 , and Menneth Construction Corporation which was esta(lished in 10/0 and dissolved in 2 , was a separate and distinct entit)% *) Decision[=] of 'ove#(er 21, 2 1, the >a(or Ar(iter ruled in favor of petitioner and dis#issed the co#plaint, holding that respondent 4new of the nature of his e#plo)#ent as a pro9ect e#plo)ee, he having eFecuted an e#plo)#ent contract specif)ing therein the na#e of and duration of the pro9ect fro# ?anuar) 2 ! until its co#pletion6 and that the services of respondent were ter#inated due to the co#pletion of the pro9ect as shown () the ter#ination report su(#itted to the D8>B% 2he >a(or Ar(iter noted that respondent ad#itted having (een assigned to several (uilding pro9ects and that he failed to give pertinent details of his dis#issal O such as who ter#inated hi#, when he was ter#inated, and what were the PovertQ acts leading to his dis#issal% 8n appeal, the 'ational >a(or &elations Co##ission ('>&C) set aside the >a(or Ar(iterLs Decision[7] of Fe(ruar) =, 2 7 holding that respondent was a regular, not a pro9ect e#plo)ee, as the e#plo)#ent contract he supposedl) signed contained the date of co##ence#ent (ut not a specific date when it would end, contrar) to the rule that the duration and scope of si#ilar contracts should (e clearl) set forth therein6 and that (ased on the pa)rolls[/] petitioner su(#itted and contrar) to its clai# that respondent was hired in ?anuar) 2 !, he had (een e#plo)ed in 2 1, not 2 !, lending weight to his clai# that he had wor4ed for petitioner for 1= )ears prior to the filing of his co#plaint% 2he '>&C thus concluded that while respondentLs wor4 as a utilit) #an #a) not have (een necessar) or desira(le in the usual (usiness of petitioner as a construction co#pan), that he

perfor#ed the sa#e functions continuousl) for 1= )ears converted an otherwise casual e#plo)#ent to regular e#plo)#ent, hence, his ter#ination without 9ust or authori;ed cause a#ounted to illegal dis#issal% "etitioner #oved for reconsideration of the '>&C decision, contending that respondentLs #otion for reconsideration which it treated as an appeal was not perfected, it having (een (elatedl) filed6 that there was no state#ent of the date of receipt of the appealed decision6 and that it lac4ed verification and copies thereof were not furnished the adverse parties% "etitionerLs #otion was denied% 2he Court of Appeals, to which petitioner appealed, affir#ed the '>&CLs ruling () Decision[0] of April 11, 2 /% "etitionerLs #otion for reconsideration having (een denied () &esolution[1 ] of August 2/, 2 /, it filed the present petition for review% "etitioner contends that the >a(or Ar(iterLs Decision dis#issing the co#plaint had (eco#e final and eFecutor) following respondentLs failure to perfect his appeal, #aintaining that the re@uire#ents for perfection of an appeal and for proof of service are not #ere rules of technicalit) which #a) easil) (e set aside% 2he petition fails% 2he '>&C did not err in treating respondentLs #otion for reconsideration as an appeal, the presence of so#e procedural flaws including the lac4 of verification and proof of service notwithstanding% In la6o7 8as5s, 7-l5s o9 p7o85!-75 s:o-l! not 65 appli5! in a v57. 7i;i! an! t58:ni8al s5ns5. 2he) are #erel) tools designed to facilitate the attain#ent of 9ustice, and where their strict application would result in the frustration rather than pro#otion of su(stantial 9ustice, technicalities #ust (e avoided . T58:ni8aliti5s s:o-l! not 65 p57mitt5! to stan! in t:5 <a. o9 5=-ita6l. an! 8ompl5t5l. 75solvin; t:5 7i;:ts an! o6li;ations o9 t:5 pa7ti5s. W:575 t:5 5n!s o9 s-6stantial >-sti85 s:all 65 65tt57 s57v5!, t:5 appli8ation o9 t58:ni8al 7-l5s o9 p7o85!-75 ma. 65 75la?5!%[11] (e#phasis supplied) &especting the lac4 of verification, Pac!uing v. Coca"Cola Philippines, Inc.[12] instructs7 As to t:5 !5958tiv5 v57i9i8ation in t:5 app5al m5mo7an!-m 659o75 t:5 N RC, t:5 sam5 li657alit. appli5s. A9t57 all, t:5 75=-i75m5nt 75;a7!in; v57i9i8ation o9 a pl5a!in; is 9o7mal, not >-7is!i8tional% -uch re@uire#ent is si#pl) a condition affecting the for# of pleading, the non,co#pliance of which does not necessaril) render the pleading fatall) defective% 3erification is si#pl) intended to secure an assurance that the allegations in the pleading are true and correct and not the product of the i#agination or a #atter of speculation, and that the pleading is filed in good faith% 2he court or tri(unal #a) order the correction of the pleading if verification is lac4ing or act on the pleading although it is not verified, if the attending circu#stances are such that strict co#pliance with the rules #a) (e dispensed with in order that the ends of 9ustice #a) there() (e served% (e#phasis supplied) As for the re@uire#ent on proof of service, it #a) also (e dispensed with since in appeals in la(or cases, non,service of cop) of the appeal or appeal #e#orandu# to the adverse part) is not a 9urisdictional defect which calls for the dis#issal of the appeal%[1!] 8n the #erits of the case, the Court finds that, indeed, respondent was a regular, not a pro9ect e#plo)ee% #aberola v. #uare$[1.] reiterates the well,settled definition of Ppro9ect e#plo)ee,Q vi$7 A pro9ect e#plo)ee is one whose K 5mplo.m5nt :as 655n 9i?5! 9o7 a sp58i9i8 p7o>58t o7 -n!57ta@in;, t:5 8ompl5tion o7 t57mination o9 <:i8: :as 655n !5t57min5! at t:5 tim5 o9 t:5 5n;a;5m5nt o9 t:5 5mplo.55 or where the wor4 or service to (e perfor#ed is seasonal in nature and the e#plo)#ent is for the duration of the season%K

(e#phasis and underscoring supplied) And %!uipment Technical #ervices v. Court o& Appeals[11] e#phasi;es the difference (etween a regular e#plo)ee and a pro9ect e#plo)ee7 As the Court has consistentl) held, the s57vi85 o9 p7o>58t 5mplo.55s a75 8ot57min-s (sic0 <it: t:5 p7o>58t and #a) (e ter#inated upon the end or co#pletion of that pro9ect or pro9ect phase for which the) were hired% R5;-la7 5mplo.55s, in 8ont7ast, 5n>o. s58-7it. o9 t5n-75 and are entitled to hold on to their wor4 or position until their services are ter#inated () an) of the #odes recogni;ed under the >a(or Code% (e#phasis and underscoring supplied) "etitionerLs various pa)rolls dating as earl) as 2 1 show that respondent had (een e#plo)ed () it% As aptl) o(served () the appellate court, these docu#ents, rather than sustaining petitionerLs argu#ent, onl) serve to support respondentLs contention that he had (een e#plo)ed in various pro9ects, if not for 1= )ears, at the ver) least two )ears prior to his dis#issal% Assu#ing arguendo that petitioner hired respondent initiall) on a per pro9ect (asis, his continued rehiring, as shown () the sa#ple pa)rolls converted his status to that of a regular e#plo)ee% Following Cocomangas 'each (otel Resort v. )isca, [1=] the repeated and continuing need for respondentLs services is sufficient evidence of the necessit), if not indispensa(ilit), of his services to petitionerIs (usiness and, as a regular e#plo)ee, he could onl) (e dis#issed fro# e#plo)#ent for a 9ust or authori;ed cause% "etitioner having failed to discharge its (urden of proving that it ter#inated the services of respondent for cause and with due process, the challenged decision #ust re#ain% WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED% SO ORDERED a8-5sta vs. ADMU DECISION QUISUMBING, J.: 2his petition for review on certiorari assails the D58ision ()0 dated 8cto(er 12, 2 1 of the Court of Appeals in CA,+%&% -" 'o% =117! and its R5sol-tion ("0 dated Fe(ruar) 21, 2 2, den)ing the #otion for reconsideration% 2he appellate court affir#ed the Decision (30 dated Fe(ruar) 2., 2 of the 'ational >a(or &elations Co##ission ('>&C), which had reversed the Decision dated :arch 2 , 100/ of the >a(or Ar(iter% 2he facts are undisputed% &espondent Ateneo de Cniversit) (Ateneo) hired, on a contractual (asis, petitioner >olita &% >acuesta as a part,ti#e lecturer in its Bnglish Depart#ent for the second se#ester of school )ear 10//,10/0% -he was re,hired, still on a contractual (asis, for the first and second se#esters of school )ear 10/0,100 % 8n ?ul) 1!, 100 , the petitioner was first appointed as full,ti#e instructor on pro(ation, in the sa#e depart#ent effective ?une 1, 100 until :arch !1, 1001% 2hereafter, her contract as facult) on pro(ation was renewed effective April 1, 1001 until :arch !1, 1002% -he was again hired for a third )ear effective April 1, 1002 until :arch !1, 100!% During these three )ears she was on pro(ation status% $n a letter dated ?anuar) 27, 100!, respondent Dr% >eovino :a% +arcia, Dean of AteneoIs +raduate -chool and College of Arts and -ciences, notified petitioner that her contract would no longer (e renewed (ecause she did not integrate well with the Bnglish Depart#ent% "etitioner then appealed to the "resident of the Ateneo at the ti#e, Fr% ?oa@uin *ernas, -%?% $n a letter dated Fe(ruar) 11, 100!, Fr% *ernas eFplained to petitioner that she was not (eing ter#inated, (ut her contract would si#pl) eFpire% 5e also stated that the universit) president #a4es a per#anent appoint#ent onl) upon reco##endation of the Dean and confir#ation of

the Co##ittee on Facult) &an4 and "er#anent Appoint#ent% 5e added that an) appoint#ent he #ight eFtend would (e tanta#ount to a #idnight appoint#ent% $n another letter dated :arch 11, 100!, Fr% *ernas offered petitioner the 9o( as (oo4 editor in the Cniversit) "ress under ter#s co#para(le to that of a facult) #e#(er% 8n :arch 2=, 100!, petitioner applied for clearance to collect her final salar) as instructor% "etitioner also signed a Nuitclai#, Discharge and &elease on April 1=, 100!% (/0 "etitioner wor4ed as editor in the Cniversit) "ress fro# April 1, 100! to :arch !1, 100. including an eFtension of two #onths after her contract eFpired% Cpon eFpir) of her contract, petitioner applied for clearance to collect her final salar) as editor% >ater, she agreed to eFtend her contract fro# ?une 1=, 100. to 8cto(er !1, 100.% "etitioner decided not to have her contract renewed due to a severe (ac4 pro(le#% -he did not report (ac4 to wor4, (ut she su(#itted her clearance on Fe(ruar) 2 , 1001% 8n Dece#(er 2!, 100=, petitioner filed a co#plaint for illegal dis#issal with pra)er for reinstate#ent, (ac4 wages, and #oral and eFe#plar) da#ages% Dr% >eovino :a% +arcia and Dr% :ari9o &ui; were sued in their official capacities as the previous and present deans of the College of Arts and -ciences, respectivel)% >a(or Ar(iter :anuel "% Asuncion held that petitioner #a) not (e ter#inated () #ere lapse of the pro(ationar) period (ut onl) for 9ust cause or failure to #eet the e#plo)erIs standards% :oreover, said the >a(or Ar(iter, the @uitclai#, discharge and release eFecuted () petitioner was not a (ar to filing a co#plaint for illegal dis#issal% (*0 2hus, he ordered reinstate#ent with pa)#ent of full (ac4 wages% 2he '>&C upon appeal of respondents reversed the >a(or Ar(iterIs decision and ruled that petitioner was not illegall) dis#issed, and that her @uitclai# was valid% "etitioner sought reconsideration (ut it was denied% -he then filed a petition for certiorari (efore the Court of Appeals assailing the '>&C decision% 2he appellate court dis#issed the petition sa)ing there was no grave a(use of discretion and affir#ed the '>&C decision% $t ruled7 WHEREFORE , the petition is here() enie and accordingl) DISMISSED% 5ence, this instant petition where petitioner assigns the following as errors7 1% 2he Court of Appeals erred in ruling that it is the :anual of &egulations For "rivate -chools, not the >a(or Code, that deter#ines the ac@uisition of regular or per#anent status of facult) #e#(ers in an educational institution6 2% 2he Court of Appeals erred in upholding the Nuitclai# that was signed () the "etitioner and in ta4ing that against her clai#s for illegal dis#issal and for #oral and eFe#plar) da#ages against the respondents% -i#pl) put, the issue in this case is whether the petitioner was illegall) dis#issed% "etitioner contends that Articles 2/ and 2/1 of the >a(or Code, (#0 not the :anual of &egulations for "rivate -chools, is the applica(le law to deter#ine whether or not an e#plo)ee in an educational institution has ac@uired regular or per#anent status% -he argues that (1) under Article 2/1, pro(ationar) e#plo)#ent shall not eFceed siF (=) #onths fro# date of e#plo)#ent unless a longer period had (een stipulated () an apprenticeship agree#ent6 (2) under Article 2/ , if the apprenticeship agree#ent stipulates a period longer than one )ear and the e#plo)ee rendered at least one )ear of service, whether continuous or (ro4en, the e#plo)ee shall (e considered as regular e#plo)ee with respect to the activit) in which he is e#plo)ed while such activit) eFists6 and (!) it is with #ore reason that petitioner (e #ade regular since she had rendered services as part,ti#e and full,ti#e Bnglish teacher for four and a half )ears, services which are necessar) and desira(le to the usual (usiness of Ateneo% (A0 Further#ore, the petitioner contends that her clearance was granted and co#pleted onl) after she signed the @uitclai# on April 1=, 100!% -he contends also that the respondents failed to show that her @uitclai# was voluntar)% &espondents, for their part, contend that the :anual of &egulations for "rivate -chools is controlling% $n the :anual, full,ti#e teachers who have rendered three consecutive )ears of satisfactor) service shall (e considered per#anent% &espondents also clai# that the petitioner

was not ter#inated (ut her e#plo)#ent contract eFpired at the end of the pro(ationar) period% Further, institutions of higher learning, such as respondent Ateneo, en9o) the freedo# to choose who #a) teach according to its standards% &espondents also argue that the @uitclai#, discharge and release () petitioner is (inding and should (ar her co#plaint for illegal dis#issal% After considering the contentions of the parties in the light of the circu#stances in this case, we find for respondents% 2he :anual of &egulations for "rivate -chools, and not the >a(or Code, deter#ines whether or not a facult) #e#(er in an educational institution has attained regular or per#anent status% ()$0 $n *niversity o& #anto Tomas v. National Labor Relations Commission the Court en banc said that under "olic) $nstructions 'o% 11 issued () the Depart#ent of >a(or and B#plo)#ent, Ithe pro(ationar) e#plo)#ent of professors, instructors and teachers shall (e su(9ect to the standards esta(lished () the Depart#ent of Bducation and Culture% -aid standards are e#(odied in paragraph 71 ())0 (now -ection 0!) of the :anual of &egulations for "rivate -chools% ()"0 -ection 0! ()30 of the 1002 :anual of &egulations for "rivate -chools provides that full,ti#e teachers who have satisfactoril) co#pleted their pro(ationar) period shall (e considered regular or per#anent% ()/0 :oreover, for those teaching in the tertiar) level, the pro(ationar) period shall not (e #ore than siF consecutive regular se#esters of satisfactor) service% ()*0 2he re@uisites to ac@uire per#anent e#plo)#ent, or securit) of tenure, are (1) the teacher is a full, ti#e teacher6 (2) the teacher #ust have rendered three consecutive )ears of service6 and (!) such service #ust have (een satisfactor)% ()40 As previousl) held, a part,ti#e teacher cannot ac@uire per#anent status% ()+0 8nl) when one has served as a full,ti#e teacher can he ac@uire per#anent or regular status% 2he petitioner was a part,ti#e lecturer (efore she was appointed as a full,ti#e instructor on pro(ation% As a part, ti#e lecturer, her e#plo)#ent as such had ended when her contract eFpired% 2hus, the three se#esters she served as part,ti#e lecturer could not (e credited to her in co#puting the nu#(er of )ears she has served to @ualif) her for per#anent status% "etitioner posits that after co#pleting the three,)ear pro(ation with an a(ove,average perfor#ance, she alread) ac@uired per#anent status% 8n this point, we are una(le to agree with petitioner% Co#pleting the pro(ation period does not auto#aticall) @ualif) her to (eco#e a per#anent e#plo)ee of the universit)% "etitioner could onl) @ualif) to (eco#e a per#anent e#plo)ee upon fulfilling the reasona(le standards for per#anent e#plo)#ent as facult) #e#(er% ()#0 Consistent with acade#ic freedo# and constitutional autono#), an institution of higher learning has the prerogative to provide standards for its teachers and deter#ine whether these standards have (een #et% ()A0 At the end of the pro(ation period, the decision to re,hire an e#plo)ee on pro(ation, (elongs to the universit) as the e#plo)er alone% Ae reiterate, however, that pro(ationar) e#plo)ees en9o) securit) of tenure, (ut onl) within the period of pro(ation% >i4ewise, an e#plo)ee on pro(ation can onl) (e dis#issed for 9ust cause or when he fails to @ualif) as a regular e#plo)ee in accordance with the reasona(le standards #ade 4nown () the e#plo)er at the ti#e of his hiring% Cpon eFpiration of their contract of e#plo)#ent, acade#ic personnel on pro(ation cannot auto#aticall) clai# securit) of tenure and co#pel their e#plo)ers to renew their e#plo)#ent contracts% ("$0 $n the instant case, petitioner, did not attain per#anent status and was not illegall) dis#issed% As found () the '>&C, her contract #erel) eFpired% >astl), we find that petitioner had alread) signed a valid @uitclai#, discharge and release which (ars the present action% 2his Court has held that not all @uitclai#s are per se invalid or against pu(lic polic), eFcept (1) where there is clear proof that the waiver was wangled fro# an unsuspecting or gulli(le person, or (2) where the ter#s of settle#ent are unconsciona(le on their face% (")0 $n this case, there is no showing that petitioner was coerced into signing the @uitclai#% $n her sworn @uitclai#, she freel) declared that she received to her full satisfaction all that is due her () reason of her e#plo)#ent and that she was voluntaril) releasing respondent Ateneo fro# all clai#s in relation to her e#plo)#ent% (""0 'othing on the face of her @uitclai# has (een shown as unconsciona(le% WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lac4 of #erit% 2he Decision dated 8cto(er 12,

2 1 of the Court of Appeals in CA,+%&% -" 'o% =117! and its &esolution dated Fe(ruar) 21, 2 2 are AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. (G.R. No. ))+*)/. O8to657 /, )AA40 MT. CARME CO EGE, 1ISHOP ,U IO A1A%EN an! SR. MERCEDES SA UD, !etitioners, "s. NATIONA A1OR RE ATIONS COMMISSION an! MRS. NORMITA A. 1ABE2, res!on ents. DECISION PUNO, J.: "etitioner :t% Car#el College, through its president, *ishop ?ulio >a(a)en, and its vice president, -ister :ercedes -alud, assails the portion of the Decision of respondent 'ational >a(or &elations Co##ission in '>&C Case 'o% &A*,$3,=,.. =,02,N[1] ordering it to pa) private respondent 'or#ita A% *aRe; the a#ount of "1 ,2 % representing her salar) for the uneFpired portion of her pro(ationar) e#plo)#ent% 2he facts are undisputed7 8n ?une 1, 10/0, petitioner school hired private respondent as grade school teacher under a written Contract of "ro(ationar) B#plo)#ent% "aragraph 1 of the contract provides for private respondentLs salar) and the duration of her e#plo)#ent, thus7 1% 2hat #) salar) or wage shall (e 8ne 2housand -iF 5undred -event) Five "esos ("1,=71% ) per #onth and until such ti#e as the -chool decides to retain #e in its per#anent e#plo), m. 5mplo.m5nt t:575in s:all 65 !55m5! to 7-n 97om S% )A#A&)AA$ to S% )AA)&)AA" C!a. to !a. o9 mont: to mont:D and #) service #a) (e ter#inated at an) ti#e after $ fail to co#pl) with the foregoing conditions laid down () the -chool% 2he -chool shall have no further lia(ilit) to #e whatsoever, either () wa) of separation pa) or otherwise%[2] (e#phasis supplied) $n :arch 1002, petitioner school ter#inated the services of private respondent as she did not pass the 'ational 2eacherLs *oard BFa#ination%[!] "rivate respondent filed a co#plaint for illegal dis#issal against the petitioners% 2he >a(or Ar(iter found petitioners guilt) of illegal dis#issal and ordered the# to reinstate private respondent with full (ac4wages%[.] "etitioners appealed to the '>&C% "u(lic respondent reversed the decision of the >a(or Ar(iter% $t found private respondentLs dis#issal fro# service to (e legal% "u(lic respondent, however, ordered petitioners to pa) private respondent the a#ount of "1 ,2 % , representing her salar) for the uneFpired portion of her pro(ationar) period% According to pu(lic respondent, private respondentLs pro(ationar) e#plo)#ent was supposed to end in ?une 1002, (ut her services were ter#inated three (!) #onths earlier, in :arch 1002% 5ence, it ordered petitioners to pa) private respondent her salar) corresponding to those #onths%[1] "etitioners filed the present petition raising the following issue7 Ahether or not the '>&C gravel) a(used its discretion in finding an PuneFpired portionQ in private respondentLs pro(ationar) contract, which eFpires at the end of the school )ear 1001,1002, and holding petitioners lia(le for the pa)#ent of her salar) e@uivalent to that PuneFpired portionQ%[=] 2he petition is i#pressed with #erit% "rivate respondentLs e#plo)#ent contract stipulated that her e#plo)#ent P s:all 65 !55m5! to 7-n 97om S% )A#A&)AA$ to S% )AA)&)AA" C!a. to !a. o9 mont: to mont:D Q% Cnder -ection ./ of the :anual of &egulations for "rivate -chools, a school )ear or acade#ic )ear (egins on the second :onda) of ?une and shall consist of PapproFi#atel) fort) wee4s of nor#all) five school da)s each, eFclusive of approved vacations and including legal and special holida)s, and special activities%Q[7] $n the cases of Espi7it- Santo Pa7o8:ial S8:ool vs. N RC[/] and Col5;io San A;-stin vs. N RC,[0] the court recogni;ed the distinction (etween a calendar )ear and a school )ear% $n Espi7itSanto Pa7o8:ial S8:ool, we held7 FFF the petitioners can not tal4 of a Pthree,)ear pro(ationar) e#plo)#ent eFpiring each school )ear%Q $f it eFpires per school )ear, it is not a three,)ear period%

2hen in Col5;io San A;-stin, we said7 FFF As applied to private school teachers, the pro(ationar) period is three )ears as provided in the #anual of &egulations for "rivate -chools% $t #ust (e stressed that the law spea4s of three years not three school )ears% FFF 'eedless to sa), a calendar )ear consists of twelve (12) #onths, while a school )ear consists onl) of ten (1 ) #onths% A school )ear (egins in ?une of one calendar )ear and ends in :arch of the succeeding calendar )ear% "u(lic respondent therefore erred in finding that private respondentLs pro(ationar) e#plo)#ent was supposed to end in ?une 1002% 2he contract clearl) states the duration of private respondentLs ter# ,, it shall (egin at the opening of school )ear 10/0,100 (i%e%, ?une 10/0) and shall end at the closing of school )ear 1001,1002 (i%e%, :arch 1002)% 5ence, petitioners are not o(liged to pa) private respondent her salar) for the #onths of April, :a) and ?une as her e#plo)#ent alread) ceased in :arch, in accordance with the provisions of her e#plo)#ent contract% IN 'IEW WHEREOF, the award of "1 ,2 % in favor of private respondent in the Decision of pu(lic respondent '>&C in '>&C Case 'o% &A*,$3,=,.. =,02,N is -B2 A-$DB% SO ORDERED. G.R. No. )/$#)" A-;-st "#, "$$) CANDIDO A FARO, petitioner, vs%COURT OF APPEA S, NATIONA A1OR RE ATIONS COMMISSION an! STAR PAPER CORPORATION, respondents% PANGANI1AN, J.: +enerall), separation pa) need not (e paid to an e#plo)ee who voluntaril) resigns% 5owever, an e#plo)er who agrees to eFpend such (enefit as an incident of the resignation should not (e allowed to renege in the perfor#ance of such co##it#ent% The Case *efore us is a "etition for &eview on Certiorari 1 under &ule .1 of the &ules of Court, see4ing to set aside the Decision2 of the Court of Appeals (CA), which affir#ed the ?une 1=, 100/ Decision of the 'ational >a(or &elations Co##ission ('>&C)%! The +acts 2he facts as related () petitioner in his :e#orandu#. are hereunder reproduced as follows7 K"etitioner was e#plo)ed as a helperHoperator of private respondent since 'ove#(er /, 100 % Fro# 'ove#(er 2!, 100! until Dece#(er 1, 100!, he too4 a sic4 leave% Ahen he reported (ac4 to wor4 on Dece#(er =, 100!, he was surprised to find out that another wor4er was recruited to ta4e his place, and instead, he was transferred to [the] wrapping section where he was re@uired to wor4 with overti#e up to 07! ":, fro# his regular wor4ing hours of fro# 77 a%#%, to .7 p%#%, despite the fact that he had 9ust recovered fro# illness% 8n Dece#(er 7, 100!, he was given a new assign#ent where the wor4 was even #ore difficult[6] when he co#plained o[f] what he felt was rude treat#ent or sort of punish#ent since he was (eing eFposed to hard la(or notwithstanding his predica#ent of 9ust co#ing fro# sic4ness, petitioner was told to loo4 for another 9o( (ecause he was dis#issed effective on said date, Dece#(er 7, 100!, when petitioner was see4ing his 1!th #onth pa) and fifteen (11) da)s sic4 leave pa) [o]n the afternoon of the sa#e da), he was ignored when he refused to sign docu#ents which indicated that he was renouncing clai#s against private respondent% *efore Christ#as of 100!, petitioner sought private respondent to pa) his 1!th #onth pa) and [his] 11 da)s sic4 leave pa), (ut he was told to co#e neFt )ear% K8n ?anuar) 12, 100., petitioner ca#e to private respondent for his aforestated #one) clai#s% During that occasion, private respondent dangled to petitioner a chec4 worth "!, % which [would] (e released to hi#, onl) if he [signed] the docu#ents, (eing forced upon hi# to sign on Dece#(er 7, 100!% Desperate for the #one) to support his su(sistence, and against his will, petitioner was constrained to sign the said docu#ents which contained no a#ount of #one) released to hi#% 2he actual su# of #one) received () petitioner fro# private respondent a#ounted to "!, % in the for# of chec4, while his clai#s for 11 da)s sic4 leave pa) was secured () hi# fro# the -ocial -ecurit) -)ste#% K2he docu#ents forced upon the petitioner to sign were a Iresignation letter, and a &elease and Nuit Clai#I% -aid Iresignation letterI read, thus7 I2o the "ersonal :anager:r% :ichael "hilip Bli;alde-tar "aper Corporation.= ?o) -t%, +race 3illage,

N%C% Dear -ir, A4o po si Candido Alfaro a) nag(i(iga) ng a4ing resignation letter dahilan po sa a4ing sa4it% C#aasa po a4o na #a(ig)an ng tulong% KAs su(#itted () private respondent in its pleadings on record, petitioner allegedl) tendered said resignation letter on ?anuar) 12, 100., on the (asis of which, the for#er #aintains that the latter was not illegall) dis#issed, was paid [his] separation pa) of "/,.11%1 , and that he voluntaril) resigned fro# his 9o( effective ?anuar) 12, 100.%K1 "rivate respondent, in its :e#orandu#= , adopts >a(or Ar(iter Donato NuintoIs findings of fact as follows7 KCo#plainant alleges that he was hired () respondent corporation in 'ove#(er 100 [as] the latterIs #achine tape operator% 2hereafter, or in the #onth[s] of -epte#(er and 8cto(er, 100!, he was suffered to do so#e painting wor4 on pallets guide using [a] spra) gun% As a result, in the third wee4 of 8cto(er, 100! he felt general (od) wea4ness coupled with constant coughing and fever% KAs a conse@uence of his illness, co#plainant alleges that he too4 a vacation leave fro# 'ove#(er 22, 100! to Dece#(er 1, 100!% 5owever, upon reporting for wor4 on Dece#(er =, 100!, co#plainant was surprised to find out that so#e(od) was alread) recruited to ta4e his place% $nstead, he was transferred to the wrapping section% K8n Dece#(er 7, 100!, co#plainant co#plained of the wor4 (eing given to hi# for (eing difficult which was interpreted as so#e sort of a punish#ent given to hi# () the respondent% As a result thereof, co#plainant alleges that he was dis#issed without valid cause and without due process of law% 5e further alleges that he was not paid his 1!th #onth pa) and 11 da)s sic4 leave which he was clai#ing (ecause he refused to sign a docu#ent renouncing all his clai#[s] against respondent corporation% K8n ?anuar) 12, 100., co#plainant went to the respondent corporation to clai# his 1!th #onth pa) and his 11 da)s sic4 leave pa)% 5e received the a#ount of "!, % (ut he was allegedl) pressured to sign a Nuitclai# and &elease with no a#ount or consideration written on said docu#ent% Further, co#plainant also alleges that he was also #ade to sign a prepared resignation letter in eFchange for the "!, % which he received which [was] contrar) to the clai# of the respondent corporation that he received "/,.12% % K8n ?une 1., 100=, the co#plainant filed a case against the respondent corporation for non,pa)#ent of separation pa)% -aid co#plaint was later a#ended on August 1, 100= () clai#ing illegal dis#issal and da#ages in lieu of separation pa), with a pra)er for reinstate#ent with (ac4wages and attorne)Is fees% K8n the other hand, respondent corporation #aintains that co#plainant while still under its e#plo) contracted "2* :ini#al Active for which reason he applied for --- (enefits on 'ove#(er 21, 100!% Considering his illness, co#plainant as4ed the respondent corporation that he (e allowed to resign with (enefits% After getting a favora(le repl), co#plainant su(#itted a resignation letter to the respondent corporation on ?anuar) 12, 100.% K*ecause of his re@uest for help, separation (enefits were li4ewise given to co#plainant in the a#ount of "/,.12%1 % Co#plainant, upon receipt of said (enefits, eFecuted a &elease and Nuitclai# in favor of respondent corporation%K The CA Ruling $n den)ing petitionerIs clai#s, the CA ruled as follows7 K$t is not eas) to uphold petitionerIs su(#ission% For, the >a(or Ar(iterIs report to the 'ational >a(or &elations Co##ission shows that petitioner Iresigned voluntaril)I% 2hus, as written in the letter of resignation7 IA4o po si candido Alfaro a) nag(i(iga) ng a4ing resignation dahilan po sa a4ing sa4it% IC#aasa po a4o na #a(ig)an ng tulong%I K2he sa#e report li4ewise #entioned the KNuitclai# and &eleaseK (AnneF 2, of private respondentIs position paper) which further strengthened the fact that petitioner resigned due to his ail#ent% $f petitionerIs concatenation is true that he was forced to sign the resignation letter against his (etter 9udg#ent, then wh) should he also sign the @uitclai# and release[G] KAe find no reason to reverse and set aside the findings and reco##endation of the >a(or Ar(iter, and affir#ed () the '>&C% As a @uasi,9udicial (od), the findings of the '>&C deserve respect, even

finalit) (:% &a#ire; $ndustries vs% -ecretar) of >a(or, 2== -C&A 1116 *ataan -hip)ard and Bngineering Corporation vs% '>&C, 2=0 -C&A 1006 'aguiat vs% '>&C, 2=0 -C&A 1=.6 Conti vs% '>&C, 271 -C&A 11.%)K 5ence, this recourse%7 The Issues "etitioner su(#its the following issues for the consideration of this Court7 K1%) Ahether or not the 5onora(le Court of Appeals co##itted grave a(use of discretion tanta#ount to lac4 or % % % eFcess of 9urisdiction andHor serious reversi(le error in holding that petitioner was not illegall) dis#issed () private respondent6 K2%) Ahether or not the 5onora(le Court of Appeals co##itted grave a(use of discretion tanta#ount to lac4 of or % % % eFcess of 9urisdiction, andHor serious reversi(le error in holding that petitioner voluntaril) resigned fro# e#plo)#ent6 K!%) Ahether or not the 5onora(le Court of Appeals co##itted grave a(use of discretion tanta#ount to lac4 of or % % % eFcess of 9urisdiction andHor reversi(le error in holding that the finding of the '>&C, deserve respect and even finalit) despite serious flaws in its appreciation of facts and evidence6 K.) Ahether or not the 5onora(le Court of Appeals co##itted grave a(use of discretion tanta#ount to lac4 of or % % % eFcess of 9urisdiction, andHor serious reversi(le error in dis#issing the petition for certiorariK/ The Court,s Ruling 2he "etition has no #erit% ain Issue-Illegal .ismissal and #eparation Pay At the outset, it (ears stressing that in a petition for review on certiorari, the scope of the -upre#e CourtIs 9udicial review of decisions of the Court of Appeals is generall) confined onl) to errors of law60 @uestions of fact are not entertained% 1 2hus, onl) @uestions of law #a) (e (rought () the parties and passed upon () this Court in the eFercise of its power to review% 11 2he -upre#e Court is not a trier of facts, and this doctrine applies with greater force in la(or cases% 12 Factual @uestions are for the la(or tri(unals to resolve% 1! $n this case, the factual issues have alread) (een deter#ined () the la(or ar(iter and the 'ational >a(or &elations Co##ission% 2heir findings were affir#ed () the CA% ?udicial review () this Court does not eFtend to a reevaluation of the sufficienc) of the evidence upon which the proper la(or tri(unal has (ased its deter#ination% 1. $ndeed, factual findings of la(or officials who are dee#ed to have ac@uired eFpertise in #atters within their respective 9urisdictions are generall) accorded not onl) respect, (ut even finalit), and are (inding on the -upre#e Court%11 3eril), their conclusions are accorded great weight upon appeal, especiall) when supported () su(stantial evidence% 1= Conse@uentl), the -upre#e Court is not dut),(ound to delve into the accurac) of their factual findings, in the a(sence of a clear showing that the sa#e were ar(itrar) and (ereft of an) rational (asis% 17 2he factual findings of the la(or ar(iter and the '>&C, as affir#ed () the CA, reveal that petitioner resigned fro# his wor4 due to his illness, with the understanding that private respondent would give hi# separation pa)% Cnfortunatel), it see#s that private respondent did not 4eep its pro#ise to grant the separation pa), pro#pting petitioner to institute the present action for illegal dis#issal% $t was onl) for this reason that the Court gave due course to this "etition% +enerall), an e#plo)ee who voluntaril) resigns fro# e#plo)#ent is not entitled to separation pa)% 1/ $n the present case, however, upon the re@uest of petitioner, private respondent agreed to a sche#e where() the for#er would receive separation pa) despite having resigned voluntaril)% Thus, the terms and conditions they both agreed upon constituted a contract &reely entered into, /hich should be per&ormed in good &aith, as it constituted the la/ bet/een the parties % 'ot all waivers and @uitclai#s are invalid as against pu(lic polic)% $f the agree#ent was voluntaril) entered into and represented a reasona(le settle#ent, it is (inding on the parties and #a) not later (e disowned, si#pl) (ecause of a change of #ind% 10 2he position ta4en () petitioner on the alleged illegal dis#issal was vacillating and indecisive, as correctl) found () the la(or ar(iter who provided a ratiocination on the #atter as follows7 K2hus, after a careful perusal of the evidence on hand, we are of the opinion that the position ta4en () the respondent corporation is #ore credi(le than that of co#plainant% 2his is evident fro# the fact that the co#plaint filed () co#plainant on ?une 1.,100=, or #ore than two (2) )ears fro# his alleged dis#issal on Dece#(er 7, 100!, was onl) pa)#ent of separation pa)% $t was onl) on August 1, 100=

when co#plainant a(andoned his clai# for separation pa) and instead filed an a#ended co#plaint clai#ing that he was, illegall) dis#issed% K2o our #ind, therefore, the foregoing coupled with the fact that there is practicall) no evidence on record which shows that co#plainant was pressured and #ade to sign a resignation letter and &elease and Nuitclai# against his will [and] (etter 9udg#ent onl) shows that his clai# of illegal dis#issal is unsu(stantiated and is a #ere afterthought% K:oreover, if indeed co#plainant was illegall) dis#issed, he should have pursued his clai# against the respondent corporation () i##ediatel) filing a co#plaint for illegal dis#issal% As it is, however, co#plainant filed a co#plaint for separation pa) against the respondent corporation onl) after two (2) )ears fro# his alleged dis#issal which co#plaint was a#ended for the purpose of clai#ing illegal dis#issal al#ost two (2) #onths thereafter%K2 3oluntar) resignation is defined as the act of an e#plo)ee, who finds hi#self in a situation in which he (elieves that personal reasons cannot (e sacrificed in favor of the eFigenc) of the service6 thus, he has no other choice (ut to disassociate hi#self fro# his e#plo)#ent% 21 As discussed a(ove, petitioner negotiated for a resignation with separation pa) as the #anner in which his e#plo)#ent relations with private respondent would end% 5e was alread) suffering fro# a lingering illness at the ti#e he tendered his resignation% 5is continued e#plo)#ent would have (een detri#ental not onl) to his health, (ut also to his perfor#ance as an e#plo)ee of private respondent% 5ence, the ter#ination of the e#plo)#ent relations of petitioner with private respondent was ulti#atel), if not outrightl) inevita(le% &esignation with separation pa) was the (est option for hi# under the circu#stances% &ightl) so, this was the #ode adopted and agreed upon () the parties, as evidenced () the &elease and Nuitclai# petitioner eFecuted in connection with his resignation% Clearl) then, the clai# of petitioner that he was illegall) dis#issed cannot (e sustained, considering that his voluntar) resignation has (een indu(ita(l) esta(lished as a fact () the three tri(unals (elow% $ndeed, illegal dis#issal and voluntar) resignation are adversel) opposed #odes of ter#inating e#plo)#ent relations, in that the presence of one precludes that of the other% Although the -upre#e Court has, #ore often than not, (een inclined towards the wor4ers and has upheld their cause in their conflicts with the e#plo)ers, such inclination has not (linded it to the rule that 9ustice is in ever) case for the deserving, to (e dispensed in the light of the esta(lished facts and applica(le law and doctrine% 22 An e#plo)ee who resigns and eFecutes a @uitclai# in favor of the e#plo)er is generally estopped fro# filing an) further #one) clai#s against the e#plo)er arising fro# the e#plo)#ent%2! 5owever, private respondent has not co#plied with its o(ligation to give petitionerIs separation pa) in the a#ount of "/,1.2%1 % $t was this deli(erate withholding of #onetar) (enefits that necessitated the long, litigious and lethargic proceedings in this case% 5ad private respondent si#pl) paid the #easl) a#ount of "/,.12%1 as separation pa) to petitioner, this legal controvers) could have (een avoided and the court doc4ets unclogged% A5B&BF8&B, the "etition is here() DB'$BD and the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals AFF$&:BD, with the #odification that private respondent is directed to pa) petitioner "/,.12%1 plus legal interest thereon, co#puted fro# Dece#(er 7, 100!, until full) paid, representing the unpaid separation pa) (enefit agreed upon () the parties% -8 8&DB&BD% G.R. No. #)$#+ ,-n5 )A, )AA) INTERTROD MARITIME, INC. an! TROODOS SHIPPING CO., petitioners, vs%NATIONA A1OR RE ATIONS COMMISSION an! ERNESTO DE A CRU2, respondents. .el Rosario 0 .el Rosario &or petitioners. PADI A, J.:! 2his petition see4s the annul#ent andHor #odification of the resolution E of the First Division of the 'ational >a(or &elations Co##ission pro#ulgated on 11 Dece#(er 10/7 in '-* Case 'o% !007,/2 entitled KBrnesto de la Cru; vs% $ntertrod :ariti#e, $nc% and 2roodos -hipping Co#pan),K which reversed the decision of then "8BA Ad#inistrator "atricia -to% 2o#as dated 2 Dece#(er 10/!% 8n 1 :a) 10/2, private respondent Brnesto de la Cru; signed a ship(oard e#plo)#ent contract with petitioner 2roodos -hipping Co#pan) as principal and petitioner $ntertrod :ariti#e, $nc%, as agent to serve as 2hird Bngineer on (oard the :H2 K*&BBDB'K for a period of twelve (12) #onths with a

(asic #onthl) salar) of C-S01 % % ) "rivate respondent eventuall) (oarded a sister vessel, :H2 KAFA:$-K and proceeded to wor4 as the vesselIs 2hird Bngineer under the sa#e ter#s and conditions of his e#plo)#ent contract previousl) referred to% " 8n 2= August 10/2, while the ship (:H2 KAfa#isK) was at "ort ")los, +reece, private respondent re@uested for relief, due to Kpersonal reason%K 3 2he :aster of the ship approved his re@uest (ut infor#ed private respondent that repatriation eFpenses were for his account and that he had to give thirt) (! ) da)s notice in view of the Clause 1 of the e#plo)#ent contract so that a replace#ent for hi# (private respondent) could (e arranged% / 8n ! August 10/2, while the vessel was at "ort -aid in Bg)pt and despite the fact that it was onl) four (.) da)s after private respondentIs re@uest for relief, the :aster Ksigned hi# offK and paid hi# in cash all a#ounts due hi# less the a#ount of C-S7/ % for his repatriation eFpenses, as evidenced () the wages account signed () the private respondent% * 8n his return to the "hilippines, private respondent filed a co#plaint with the 'ational -ea#en *oard ('-*)(now "8BA) charging petitioners for (reach of e#plo)#ent contract and violation of '-* rules and regulations% 4 "rivate respondent alleged that his re@uest for relief was #ade in order to ta4e care of a Filipino #e#(er of the crew of :H2 KAFA:$-K who was hospitali;ed on 21 August 10/2 in Athens, +reece% 5owever, the :aster of the ship refused to let hi# i##ediatel) dise#(ar4 in +reece so that the reason for his re@uest for relief ceased to eFist% 5ence, when the :aster of the ship forced hi# to step out in Bg)pt despite his protestations to the contrar), there (eing no #ore reason to re@uest for relief, an illegal dis#issal occurred and he had no other recourse (ut to return to the "hilippines at his own eFpense% + $n its Answer to the co#plaint, petitioners denied the allegations of the co#plainant and averred that the contract was cut short (ecause of private respondentIs own re@uest for relief so that it was onl) proper that he should pa) for his repatriation eFpenses in accordance with the provisions of their e#plo)#ent contract% # 2he sole issue to (e resolved in this case is whether or not co#plainantIs ter#ination is illegal% "8BA rendered a decision dis#issing the co#plaint for lac4 of #erit% A 8n appeal to the '>&C, the decision was reversed% 2he dispositive portion of the '>&C decision reads7 A5B&BF8&B, the appealed decision is here() -B2 A-$DB and another one entered, directing respondents,appellees to7 (1) pa) co#plainant,appellant the a#ount of C-S7/ % representing his plane fare fro# Bg)pt to :anila6 and (2) pa) co#plainant,appellant the a#ount of C-S=,! % representing his unearned salar) for nine (0) #onths, the uneFpired portion of the contract% Foreign eFchange conversions shall (e paid in "hilippine currenc) at the rate of eFchange at the actual pa)#ent thereof% -8 8&DB&BD% )$ 5ence, this petition% Article 21(c) of the >a(or Code re@uires that the "hilippine 8verseas B#plo)#ent Ad#inistration (for#erl) '-*) should approve and verif) a contract for overseas B#plo)#ent% )) A contract, which is approved () the 'ational -ea#en *oard, such as the one in this case, is the law (etween the contracting parties6 and where there is nothing in it which is contrar) to law, #orals, good custo#s, pu(lic polic) or pu(lic order, the validit) of said contract #ust (e sustained% )" $n its resolution, the '>&C held that the i##ediate approval of private respondentIs re@uest for relief should have resulted in his dise#(ar4ation in "ort ")los, +reece6 that failure of the :aster to allow dise#(ar4ation in +reece nullified the re@uest for relief and its approval, such that private respondentIs su(se@uent dise#(ar4ation in Bg)pt is no longer his doing (ut rather an illegal dis#issal on the part of the :aster% )3 Ae cannot support such a ruling for it fails to consider the clear i#port of the provisions of the e#plo)#ent contract (etween petitioners and private respondent% "aragraph 1 of the B#plo)#ent Contract (etween petitioners and private respondent Brnesto de la Cru; provides as follows7 1% 2hat, if the sea#an decide to ter#inate his contract prior to the eFpiration of the service period as stated and defined in paragraph . of this B#plo)#ent Contract, without due cause, he will give the :aster thirt) (! ) da)s notice and agree to allow his repatriation eFpenses to (e deducted fro# wages due hi#% )/

Clearl), therefore, private respondent Brnesto de la Cru; was re@uired () the e#plo)#ent contract not onl) to pa) his own repatriation eFpenses (ut also to give thirt) (! ) da)s notice should he decide to ter#inate his e#plo)#ent prior to the eFpiration of the period provided in the contract% Ahen the :aster approved his re@uest for relief, the :aster e#phasi;ed that private respondent was re@uired to give thirt) (! ) da)s notice and to shoulder his own repatriation eFpenses% Approval of his re@uest for relief, therefore, did not constitute a waiver () petitioners of the provisions of the contract, as private respondent would have us (elieve, for it was #ade clear to hi# that the provisions of the contract, insofar as the thirt) (! ) da)s notice and repatriation eFpenses were concerned, were to (e enforced% "rivate respondent clai#s that his re@uest for relief was onl) for the reason of ta4ing care of a fellow #e#(er of the crew so #uch so that when he was not allowed to dise#(ar4 in "ort ")los, +reece, the reason no longer eFisted and, therefore, when he was forced to Ksign offK at "ort -aid, Bg)pt even when he signified intentions of continuing his wor4, he was illegall) dis#issed% )* Ae s)#pathi;e with the private respondent6 however, we cannot sustain such contention% &esignation is the voluntar) act of an e#plo)ee who Kfinds hi#self in a situation where he (elieves that personal reasons cannot (e sacrificed in favor of the eFigenc) of the service, then he has no other choice (ut to disassociate hi#self fro# his e#plo)#ent%K )4 2he e#plo)er has no control over resignations and so, the notification re@uire#ent was devised in order to ensure that no disruption of wor4 would (e involved () reason of the resignation% 2his practice has (een recogni;ed (ecause Kever) (usiness enterprise endeavors to increase its profits () adopting a device or #eans designed towards that goal%K )+ &esignations, once accepted and (eing the sole act of the e#plo)ee, #a) not (e withdrawn without the consent of the e#plo)er% $n the instant case, the :aster had alread) accepted the resignation and, although the private respondent was (eing re@uired to serve the thirt) (! ) da)s notice provided in the contract, his resignation was alread) approved% "rivate respondent cannot clai# that his resignation ceased to (e effective (ecause he was not i##ediatel) discharged in "ort ")los, +reece, for he could no longer unilaterall) withdraw such resignation% Ahen he later signified his intention of continuing his wor4, it was alread) up to the petitioners to accept his withdrawal of his resignation% 2he #ere fact that the) did not accept such withdrawal did not constitute illegal dis#issal for acceptance of the withdrawal of the resignation was their (petitionersI) sole prerogative% 8nce an e#plo)ee resigns and his resignation is accepted, he no longer has an) right to the 9o(% $f the e#plo)ee later changes his #ind, he #ust as4 for approval of the withdrawal of his resignation fro# his e#plo)er, as if he were re,appl)ing for the 9o(% $t will then (e up to the e#plo)er to deter#ine whether or not his service would (e continued% $f the e#plo)er accepts said withdrawal, the e#plo)ee retains his 9o(% $f the e#plo)er does not, as in this case, the e#plo)ee cannot clai# illegal dis#issal for the e#plo)er has the right to deter#ine who his e#plo)ees will (e% 2o sa) that an e#plo)ee who has resigned is illegall) dis#issed, is to encroach upon the right of e#plo)ers to hire persons who will (e of service to the#% Further#ore, the e#plo)#ent contract also provides as follows7 .% 2hat all ter#s and conditions agreed herein are for a service period of twelve (12) #onths provided the vessel is in a convenient port for his repatriation, otherwise at :asterIs discretion, on vesselIs arrival at the first port where repatriation is practica(le provided that such continued service shall not eFceed three #onths% )# Cnder the ter#s of the e#plo)#ent contract, it is the shipIs :aster who deter#ines where a sea#an re@uesting relief #a) (e Ksigned off%K $t is, therefore, erroneous for private respondent to clai# that his resignation was effective onl) in +reece and that (ecause he was not i##ediatel) allowed to dise#(ar4 in +reece (as the e#plo)er wanted co#pliance with the contractual conditions for ter#ination on the part of the e#plo)ee), the resignation was to (e dee#ed auto#aticall) withdrawn% 2he decision of the '>&C is therefore set aside% 2o sustain it would (e to authori;e undue oppression of the e#plo)er% After all, Kthe law, in protecting the rights of the la(orer, authori;es neither oppression nor self,destruction of the e#plo)er%K )A A5B&BF8&B, the petition is +&A'2BD% 2he @uestioned resolution of the 'ational >a(or &elations Co##ission dated 11 Dece#(er 10/7 is here() &B3B&-BD and -B2 A-$DB and the decision of then "8BA Ad#inistrator "atricia -to% 2o#as dated 2 Dece#(er 10/! is &B3$3BD% 'o pronounce#ent as to costs% -8 8&DB&BD% (G.R. No. )4))A4, ,-l. "#, "$$#0

1 UE ANGE MANPOWER AND SECURIT% SER'ICES, INC., PETITIONER, 'S. HON. COURT OF APPEA S, ROME CASTI O, WI SON CIRIACO, GAR% GARCES, AND CHESTERFIE D MERCADER, RESPONDENTS. DECISION 'E ASCO ,R., ,.: $n this petition for review under &ule .1, petitioner *lue Angel :anpower and -ecurit) -ervices, $nc% (*lue Angel) assails and see4s to reverse the Decision [1] dated Fe(ruar) 2=, 2 ! of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA,+%&% -" 'o% =7.7/, in part setting aside the Decision dated :a) 0, 2 1 of the 'ational >a(or &elations Co##ission ('>&C)% 2he facts are as found () the CA% *lue Angel, a #essengerial and securit) agenc), hired private respondents &o#el Castillo, Ailson Ciriaco, +ar) +arces, and Chesterfield :ercader as securit) guards and detailed the# at the 'ational College of *usiness and Arts ('C*A) in Cu(ao, Nue;on Cit)% 8n April 2 , 1000, Castillo and :ercader, later 9oined () Ciriaco and +arces, filed a co#plaint for illegal deductions and other #one) clai#s against *lue Angel% Bventuall), the) a#ended their co#plaint to include illegal dis#issal% According to the four guards, the) were re@uired, while still with *lue Angel, to wor4 fro# 77 a%#% to 77 p%#% without overti#e and pre#iu# holida) pa), a#ong other (enefits% 2he) also alleged receiving onl) "h" 1, a #onth or "h" 1== per da) and, fro# this a#ount, *lue Angel deducted "h" 1 as cash (ond% 2he) further averred that *lue Angel, when apprised of their original co#plaint, illegall) ter#inated +arces and Ciriaco on April 11 and 12, 1000, respectivel), and Castillo and :ercader on April 2/, 1000% 2he four guards pra)ed for (1) pa)#ent of (ac4wages, wage differentials, pre#iu# and overti#e pa) for holida)s, and 1!th #onth pa)6 (2) rei#(urse#ent of their cash (ond6 (!) reinstate#ent or separation pa)6 and (.) da#ages% *lue Angel, for its part, denied the charges of illegal dis#issal% $t alleged that, on two occasions, the officer,in,charge (8$C) of the -ecurit) Force of 'C*A, &e)naldo Da)ag, reported that the four co#plaining guards had, while on guard dut) detail with the school, co##itted several infractions, a#ong the#7 insu(ordination, sleeping while on dut), and a(sence without leave (AA8>)% Ahen su##oned to eFplain their side on the derogator) report, onl) Castillo, Ciriaco, and +arces, according to *lue Angel, showed up, (ut not :ercader who had since stopped reporting for wor4 and thus considered on AA8>% Continuing, *lue Angel alleged that when told that the) would (e su(9ected to an investigation, Castillo, Ciriaco, and +arces pleaded that the) (e allowed to resign instead% 2he three, so *lue Angel clai#ed, then tendered their pro"&orma letters of resignation followed () handwritten resignation letters in the nature of @uitclai#s% 2o refute the guardsI clai#s of non, pa)#ent of what was due the#, *lue Angel presented the pa)rolls and vouchers fro# ?ul) 1007 to April 1000 that showed the four guardsI respective gross salaries and deductions% $n a Decision[2] dated :a) !1, 2 , the la(or ar(iter, in part, found for the guards, *lue Angel (eing ordered to i##ediatel) reinstate the# with (ac4wages% 2he dispositive portion of the la(or ar(iterIs decision reads7 A5B&BF8&B, pre#ises considered, 9udg#ent is here() rendered ordering *lue Angel -ecurit) and :anpower -ervices, $nc% to i##ediatel) reinstate the co#plainants to their for#er positions pursuant to the ruling in the "ioneer 2eFturing case that an order of reinstate#ent is self,eFecutor) even pending appeal% &espondent is here() ordered to pa) the (ac4wages of the co#plainants tentativel) co#puted as follows7(cut)

-8 8&DB&BD% Dissatisfied, *lue Angel, on one hand, and Castillo, et al%, on the other, interposed separate appeals to the '>&C, the for#er faulting the la(or ar(iter #ainl) for his finding that the four guards in @uestion were illegall) dis#issed% 2he guards, for their part, too4 eFception to the ar(iterIs holding that so#e ite#s of their #one) clai# had alread) (een paid% *) the Decision dated :a) 0, 2 1, the '>&C affir#ed with #odification that of the la(or ar(iter% 2he '>&C predicated its #odificator) action on the finding that Castillo, Ciriaco, and +arces were not ter#inated fro# the service as the) had indeed voluntaril) resigned, and that onl) :ercader was illegall) dis#issed% $n net effect, the '>&C ruled that, of the four co#plaining guards, onl) :ercader deserved to (e reinstated with (ac4wages as he was the onl) one dis#issed illegall)% 2he dispositive portion of the '>&C Decision reads7 A5B&BF8&B, in light of the foregoing, the appealed Decision is here() AFF$&:BD with the #odification onl) in so far as the dis#issal of the co#plaints filed () &o#el Castillo, [Ailson] Ciriaco and +ar) +arces6 the 9udg#ent arrived at in the case of co#plainant Chesterfield :ercader is here() Affir#ed% All other reliefs herein sought and pra)ed for are DB'$BD for lac4 of #erit% -8 8&DB&BD%[!] According to the '>&C, the two sets of letters of resignation, the pro"&orma resignations and the handwritten resignations, were never disputed% *esides, the '>&C reasoned, the fact that the later resignation letters were handwritten in Pilipino, a dialect 4nown to the#, #ilitated against the clai#s of Castillo, Ciriaco, and +arces that the) were coerced and pressured to writing the letters% 8n certiorari (efore the CA, the CA first noted that *lue Angel did not appeal the portion of the '>&C Decision affir#ing the la(or ar(iterIs ruling that :ercader was illegall) dis#issed6 hence, said portion of the decision of the la(or ar(iter (eca#e final and (inding on *lue Angel% 'ow to the case of Castillo, Ciriaco, and +arces% $n its Fe(ruar) 2=, 2 ! Decision, the CA found incredulous the clai# of *lue Angel that the guards pleaded that the) (e allowed to resign and had voluntaril) resigned after the) were told that an investigation would ensue% 2he CA concluded that *lue Angel had illegall) ter#inated Castillo, Ciriaco, and +arces% 2he &allo of its Decision reads7 A5B&BF8&B, 25B "B2$2$8' is here() +&A'2BD% 2he decision of the 'ational >a(or &elations Co##ission dated :a) 0, 2 1 is A''C>>BD A'D -B2 A-$DB eFcept insofar as it sustained the la(or ar(iterIs ruling that petitioner Chesterfield :ercader was illegall) dis#issed, with the result that the decision of the la(or ar(iter dated :a) !1, 2 is reinstated% -8 8&DB&BD% 'ow (efore us, petitioner *lue Angel raises that the CA co##itted palpa(le and reversi(le error of law in7 $% 58>D$'+ 25A2 "&$3A2B &B-"8'DB'2- AB&B $>>B+A>>< D$-:$--BD% $$% $' '82 58>D$'+ 25A2 "&$3A2B &B-"8'DB'2- A&B '82 B'2$2>BD 28 25B$& C>A$:- F8& *ACMAA+B- 8& A'< 825B& :8'B2A&< *B'BF$2 A- 25B< 5A3B A>&BAD< &BCB$3BD A>> 25B -A>A&$B- A'D *B'BF$2- 25A2 25B< A&B B'2$2>BD 28% $t is to (e stressed, as a preli#inar) consideration, that the illegalit) of :ercaderIs dis#issal and his entitle#ent to reinstate#ent with (ac4wages is now a settled issue, the '>&CIs holding on that regard (eing conclusive on *lue Angel when it failed, as the CA aptl) o(served, to appeal that portion of the '>&CIs decision% $t is a settled rule that no @uestions will (e entertained on appeal unless the) have (een raised (elow%[.] Accordingl), an) disposition henceforth #ade herein (earing on the illegalit) of dis#issal shall (e li#ited onl) to the case of private respondents Castillo, Ciriaco, and +arces% Ahen

#ention, therefore, is hereinafter #ade of private respondents or respondents,guards, the reference is to Castillo, Ciriaco and +arces onl), unless the conteFt indicates that it shall include :ercader% 2he @uestion of whether or not private respondents were illegall) dis#issed hinges on the deter#ination of whether or not the) freel) and voluntaril) resigned as shown () the two sets of resignation letters% Ae rule that the resignations were involuntar) and the ter#ination of private respondents was illegal% *lue Angel insists that the guards had pleaded to (e allowed to resign when the) were told of the pending investigation, and that the) eventuall) tendered their pro"&orma resignation letters followed () their own handwritten resignation letters% 8ur review of the circu#stances surrounding these resignation letters does not support *lue AngelIs contentions that these letters are indications that private respondents had voluntaril) resigned% Ae agree with the la(or ar(iter when he pointed out that the undated, si#ilarl) worded resignation letters tended to show that the guards were #ade to cop) the pro"&orma letters, in their own hand, to #a4e the# appear #ore convincing that the guards had voluntaril) resigned% As the la(or ar(iter noted, the ele#ent of voluntariness of the resignations is even #ore suspect considering that the second set of resignation letters were pre,drafted, si#ilarl) worded, and with (lan4 spaces filled in with the effectivit) dates of the resignations% [1] $n their Co##ent, private respondents clai#ed (eing forced to sign and cop) the pro"&orma resignation letters and @uitclai#s on pain that the) would not get their re#aining co#pensations% [=] Ae are #ore inclined to (elieve the dis#issed guards% 8ther circu#stances have (een aptl) pointed out () respondents,guards in their Co##ent that we are wont to agree that the) were forced into a situation where to refuse to sign the resignation letters and @uitclai#s #eant loss of #one) for the i##ediate and urgent (asic needs of their fa#il)% 2o (uttress the conclusion that the resignation letters were involuntar) on the part of the guards, we find convincing the circu#stances #entioned in the Co##ent of respondents,guards% For one, it see#ed unli4el) and i#pro(a(le that +arces and Ciriaco would voluntaril) resign on April 2=, 1000 when the) had 11 and 12 da)s earlier, or on April 11 and 12, 1000, alread) (een ter#inated% 2hen again, it was li4ewise inconsistent and i#plausi(le that Castillo would voluntaril) tender his resignation and sign a @uitclai# on April 2/, 1000, when :ercader and he had in fact alread) filed a co#plaint against *lue Angel with the '>&C regarding illegal deductions of their salar) eight da)s earlier, or on April 2 , 1000% [7] >astl), there is nothing on record showing that *lue Angel provided an) proof that Castillo, Ciriaco, and +arces had indeed co##itted the infractions attri(uted to the#% *lue Angel #erel) enu#erated the offenses without providing particulars as to the date and place these infractions were co##itted% 'either did *lue Angel present written notices, warnings, and affidavits of the 8$C to support its allegations against the guards% Ae are not unaware that the eFecution of the resignation letters was undisputed, (ut the afore#entioned circu#stances of this case and the fact that private respondents filed a co#plaint for illegal dis#issal fro# e#plo)#ent against *lue Angel co#pletel) negate the clai# that private respondents voluntaril) resigned% [/] Aell,entrenched is the rule that resignation is inconsistent with the filing of a co#plaint for illegal dis#issal% [0] 2o constitute resignation, the resignation #ust (e unconditional with the intent to operate as such% 2here #ust (e clear intention to relin@uish the position% $n this case, private respondents activel) pursued their illegal dis#issal case against *lue Angel such that the) cannot (e said to have voluntaril) resigned fro# their 9o(s% Aith the finding that private respondents were illegall) dis#issed, the) are entitled to reinstate#ent to their positions without loss of their seniorit) rights and with full (ac4wages, inclusive of allowances, and to other (enefits or their #onetar) e@uivalent co#puted fro# the ti#e private respondentsI co#pensation was withheld fro# the# up to the ti#e of their actual reinstate#ent as provided for in Article 270 of the >a(or Code%

As the law now stands, illegall) dis#issed e#plo)ees are entitled to two reliefs, na#el)7 (ac4wages and reinstate#ent% 2he) are entitled to reinstate#ent, if via(le, or separation pa), if reinstate#ent is no longer feasi(le, and (ac4wages%[1 ] 2he award of one does not preclude the other as the Court had, in proper cases, ordered the pa)#ent of (oth% [11] Ahere an e#plo)ee would have (een entitled to reinstate#ent with full (ac4wages, (ut circu#stances, i%e%, strained relationships, #a4e reinstate#ent i#possi(le, the #ore e@uita(le disposition would (e to award separation pa) e@uivalent to at least one #onth pa), or one #onth pa) for ever) )ear of service, whichever is higher, in addition to full (ac4wages, inclusive of allowances, and (enefits or their #onetar) e@uivalent, co#puted fro# the ti#e the e#plo)eeIs co#pensation was withheld up to the ti#e of the e#plo)eeIs actual reinstate#ent%
[12]

As to the other #one) clai#s of private respondents, the vouchers, [1!] pa)rolls,[1.] and other docu#entar) evidence[11] show that the other #onetar) (enefits (eing clai#ed () private respondents have alread) (een dul) paid% WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for lac4 of #erit% 2he Decision of the CA in CA,+%&% -" 'o% =7.7/ reinstating the Decision dated :a) !1, 2 of the la(or ar(iter is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that petitioner *lue Angel -ecurit) and :anpower -ervices, $nc% is ordered to reinstate co#plainants &o#el Castillo, Ailson Ciriaco, and +ar) +arces to their for#er positions without loss of seniorit) rights and other privileges and with full (ac4wages, inclusive of allowances and other (enefits or their #onetar) e@uivalent co#puted fro# the ti#e their co#pensations were withheld fro# the# up to the ti#e of their actual reinstate#ents% $n the event reinstate#ent is not feasi(le, the) shall (e paid separation pa) in the a#ount e@uivalent to at least one #onth pa) or one #onth pa) for ever) )ear of service whichever is higher% Aith respect to Chesterfield :ercader, the '>&C Decision dated :a) 0, 2 1, affir#ing the la(or ar(iterIs Decision dated :a) !1, 2 which ordered petitioner to reinstate hi# to his for#er position and pa) hi# (ac4wages of "h" /2,071, had (eco#e final on 'ove#(er 2, 2 1, in the a(sence of an appeal thereon to the CA% SO ORDERED. 'ICENTE vs. CA #$CISI%N %NARES&SANTIAGO, J%7 2his "etition for &eview on Certiorari assails the Decision and &esolution of the Court of Appeals dated August 1/, 2 =[1] and Dece#(er 1!, 2 =,[2] respectivel), in CA,+%&% -" 'o% //1. which reversed and set aside the Decision of the 'ational >a(or &elations Co##ission ('>&C) dated ?une 21, 2 .[!] and its &esolution dated 8cto(er 1., 2 .,[.] and declared that petitioner was not constructivel) dis#issed (ut voluntaril) resigned fro# her e#plo)#ent% 2he antecedent facts are as follows7 "etitioner Finina B% 3icente was e#plo)ed () respondent Cinderella :ar4eting Corporation (Cinderella) as :anage#ent Coordinator in ?anuar) 100 % "rior to her resignation in Fe(ruar) 2 , she held the position of Consign#ent 8perations :anager with a salar) of "27, % a #onth%[1] -he was tas4ed with the oversight, supervision and #anage#ent of the Consign#ent Depart#ent dealing directl) with CinderellaLs consignors%[=] "etitioner alleged that it has (een a practice a#ong the e#plo)ees of Cinderella to o(tain

cash advances () charging the a#ount fro# the net sales of CinderellaLs suppliersHconsignors% :r% :iguel 2ecson (A3",Finance) approves the re@uests for cash advances, :r% Arthur Coronel (A3", :erchandising) issues the #e#os instructing the accounting depart#ent to issue the corporate chec4s and finall), :s% 2heresa -antos (+eneral :anager) rediscounts the# () issuing her personal chec4s% [7] After so#e ti#e, one of CinderellaLs suppliers co#plained a(out the unauthori;ed deductions fro# the net sales due the#% Accordingl), an investigation was conducted and upon initial review of respondentLs (usiness records, it appears that petitioner was a#ong those involved in the irregular and fraudulent preparation and encash#ent of respondentLs corporate chec4s a#ounting to at least "1 , % %[/] "etitioner alleged that :r% 2ecson de#anded her resignation on several occasions% 8n Fe(ruar) 11, 2 , :r% 2ecson allegedl) told her P:A+,&B-$+' MA'A A+AD MA-$ :A$$"$2 MA:$,Q in the presence of >i;; 3illafuerte, the Accounting :anager%[0] As a result of this alleged force and inti#idation, petitioner tendered her resignation letter% 8n ?anuar) 1!, 2 !, or three )ears after her resignation, petitioner filed a co#plaint against Cinderella alleging that her severance fro# e#plo)#ent was involuntar) a#ounting to constructive dis#issal%[1 ] Cinderella denied the charge of constructive dis#issal% $t clai#ed that petitioner voluntaril) resigned fro# office (efore the internal audit was co#pleted and (efore an) for#al investigation was initiated% -he tendered her resignation on Fe(ruar) 7, 2 , then su(#itted another resignation letter on Fe(ruar) 11, 2 where she confir#ed the first resignation letter% &espondent alleged that the co#plaint for constructive dis#issal was a #ere afterthought de#onstrated () the long dela) of filing the sa#e%[11] 8n 8cto(er 21, 2 !, the >a(or Ar(iter rendered a Decision[12] finding that petitioner was constructivel) and illegall) dis#issed% 2he >a(or Ar(iter ruled that Cinderella was not a(le to controvert petitionerLs assertion that she was forced to resign6 that the resignation letter relied upon () respondent to show the voluntariness of the resignation was fa(ricated and without evidentiar) weight since it does not (ear petitionerLs signature6 that there was no (asis to ter#inate petitioner on the ground of loss of confidence since her involve#ent in the fraudulent transactions was dou(tful as shown () the Confidential :e#o clearing her of an) lia(ilit)% 2he dispositive portion of the >a(or Ar(iterLs decision reads7 A5B&BF8&B, pre#ises all considered, 9udg#ent is here() rendered ordering respondent Cinderella :ar4eting Corporation to7 1% pa) co#plainant separation pa) in lieu of reinstate#ent co#puted at one (1) #onth for ever) )ear of service in the a#ount of "27 , % 6 and 2% pa) co#plainant full (ac4wages fro# the ti#e she filed this co#plaint in the a#ount of "27 , % % -8 8&DB&BD%[1!] 8n appeal, the '>&C affir#ed the decision of the >a(or Ar(iter% $t held that the state#ent of :r% 2ecson infor#ing petitioner, to wit7 P:A+,&B-$+' MA'A A+AD MA-$ :A$$"$2 MA:$,Q was the proFi#ate cause for petitionerLs decision to resign% 2hus, the resignation cannot (e dee#ed voluntar) notwithstanding the eFecution of the two resignation letters% &espondent co#pan)Ls #otion for reconsideration was denied hence, it filed a "etition for

Certiorari under &ule =1 with the Court of Appeals% 8n August 1/, 2 =, the Court of Appeals rendered its decision finding that the totalit) of evidence on record showed that petitioner voluntaril) resigned fro# her e#plo)#ent6 that the su(se@uent acts of petitioner (elie the clai# of constructive dis#issal6 that after the alleged forced resignation, petitioner attended the #eetings concerning her involve#ent in the ano#alous transactions and even arranged for the settle#ent of her conse@uent lia(ilities as #a) (e deter#ined during the investigation6 that the (elated filing of the co#plaint #ilitates against petitioner (ecause it is hardl) eFpected fro# an aggrieved e#plo)ee to wait three )ears (efore instituting the case% 2he dispositive portion of the Decision provides7 A5B&BF8&B, the foregoing considered, the petition is +&A'2BD and the assailed Decision &B3B&-BD and -B2 A-$DB% "rivate respondentLs co#plaint a @uo is here() dis#issed% 'o costs% -8 8&DB&BD%[1.] "etitionerLs #otion for reconsideration was denied hence, the present petition for review on certiorari raising the following issues7 $%25B C8C&2 8F A""BA>- C8::$22BD &B3B&-$*>B B&&8& $' &B3B&-$'+ 25B FAC2CA> F$'D$'+- 8F 25B >A*8& A&*$2B& A'D 25B '>&C% $$%25B C8C&2 8F A""BA>- C8::$22BD &B3B&-$*>B B&&8& $' &C>$'+ 25A2 "B2$2$8'B& 38>C'2A&$>< &B-$+'BD F&8: "&$3A2B &B-"8'DB'2%[11] "etitioner asserts the following7 (1) 2he factual findings of the >a(or Ar(iter and the '>&C are not correcti(le () certiorari and are (inding on the -upre#e Court in the a(sence of an) showing that the) are co#pletel) without an) support in the evidence on record% (2) $n ter#ination cases, the e#plo)er has the (urden of proof that the resignation is voluntar) and not the product of coercion, inti#idation or other factors that vitiate the free will% (!) 2he '>&C correctl) gave credence to petitionerLs allegation that :r% 2ecson de#anded her resignation% (.) 2he dela) in filing the co#plaint for illegal dis#issal cannot (e ta4en against her as the sa#e was filed within the prescriptive period allowed () law to file such actions% 2he petition lac4s #erit% 2he pri#ar) issue in the case at (ar is factual7 whether petitioner was constructivel) dis#issed% "etitioner clai#s that her separation fro# e#plo)#ent was a case of constructive dis#issal% 8n the other hand, respondent argues that petitioner voluntaril) resigned% "etitioner faults the Court of Appeals for reversing the factual findings of the >a(or Ar(iter as affir#ed () the '>&C that she was constructivel) dis#issed rel)ing on the principle of finalit) and conclusiveness of the decisions of the la(or tri(unals% 5owever, it is well,settled that for want of su(stantial (asis, in fact or in law, factual findings of an ad#inistrative agenc), such as the '>&C, cannot (e given the sta#p of finalit) and conclusiveness nor#all) accorded to it, as even decisions of ad#inistrative agencies which are declared PfinalQ () law are not eFe#pt fro# the 9udicial review when so warranted%[1=] $n ad#inistrative proceedings, the @uantu# of proof re@uired is su(stantial evidence, which is #ore than a #ere scintilla of evidence, (ut such a#ount of relevant evidence which a reasona(le #ind #ight accept as ade@uate to 9ustif) a conclusion%[17] 2he Court of Appeals #a) review the

factual findings of the '>&C and reverse its ruling if it finds that the decision of the '>&C lac4s su(stantial (asis% $n the sa#e vein, factual findings of the Court of Appeals are generall) not su(9ect to this CourtLs review under &ule .1% 5owever, the general rule on the conclusiveness of the factual findings of the Court of Appeals is also su(9ect to well,recogni;ed eFceptions such as where the Court of AppealsL findings of facts contradict those of the lower court, or the ad#inistrative (odies, as in this case%[1/] All these considered, we are co#pelled to #a4e a further cali(ration of the evidence at hand% "etitioner argues that the e#plo)er (ears the (urden of proof that the resignation is voluntar) and not the product of coercion or inti#idation% Ae agree that in ter#ination cases, (urden of proof rests upon the e#plo)er to show that the dis#issal is for a 9ust and valid cause and failure to do so would necessaril) #ean that the dis#issal was illegal%[10] $n obile Protective 0 .etective Agency v. Ompad,[2 ] the Court ruled that should an e#plo)er interpose the defense of resignation, as in the present case, it is still incu#(ent upon respondent co#pan) to prove that the e#plo)ee voluntaril) resigned% Fro# the totalit) of evidence on record, it was clearl) de#onstrated that respondent Cinderella has sufficientl) discharged its (urden to prove that petitionerLs resignation was voluntar)% $n voluntar) resignation, the e#plo)ee is co#pelled () personal reason(s) to disassociate hi#self fro# e#plo)#ent% $t is done with the intention of relin@uishing an office, acco#panied () the act of a(andon#ent%[21] 2o deter#ine whether the e#plo)ee indeed intended to relin@uish such e#plo)#ent, the act of the e#plo)ee (efore and after the alleged resignation #ust (e considered%[22] "etitioner relin@uished her position when she su(#itted the letters of resignation% 2he resignation letter su(#itted on Fe(ruar) 11, 2 confir#ed the earlier resignation letter she su(#itted on Fe(ruar) 7, 2 % 2he resignation letter contained words of gratitude which can hardl) co#e fro# an e#plo)ee forced to resign%[2!] 2he '>&C cannot disregard the resignation letter dated Fe(ruar) 11, 2 on the allegation that its su(#ission was a product of an unintelligent and confused decision due to the disdain shown () :r% 2ecson a(sent an) sufficient proof of force or inti#idation% >i4ewise, it was erroneous for the >a(or Ar(iter not to give evidentiar) weight on the resignation letter on the ground that it was fa(ricated as it was not signed () petitioner% A careful scrutin) of the said letter shows that it (ears the signature of petitioner% :ore i#portantl), petitioner ad#itted having su(#itted the said letter, al(eit, due to an alleged inti#idation% -u(se@uentl), petitioner stopped reporting for wor4 although she #et with the officers of the corporation to settle her accounta(ilities (ut never raised the alleged inti#idation e#plo)ed on her% Also, though the co#plaint was filed within the .,)ear prescriptive period, its (elated filing supports the contention of respondent that it was a #ere afterthought%[2.] 2a4en together, these circu#stances are su(stantial proof that petitionerLs resignation was voluntar)% 5ence, petitioner cannot ta4e refuge in the argu#ent that it is the e#plo)er who (ears the (urden of proof that the resignation is voluntar) and not the product of coercion or inti#idation% 5aving su(#itted a resignation letter, it is then incu#(ent upon her to prove that the resignation was not voluntar) (ut was actuall) a case of constructive dis#issal[21] with clear, positive, and convincing evidence%[2=] "etitioner failed to su(stantiate her clai# of constructive dis#issal% "etitioner contends there was an orchestrated plan to inti#idate her into resigning to eFculpate other officers of the co#pan) fro# the ano#al)6 and that in the course of the internal investigation, :r% 2ecson forced her to resign () sa)ing, P ag"resign 1a na. aiipit 1ami.Q Allegedl), this caused confusion and fear which led to her uninfor#ed decision of tendering the resignation letter on Fe(ruar) 11, 2 %

Ae agree with the Court of Appeals that it was grave error on the part of the '>&C to rel) on the allegation that :r% 2ecson threatened and forced petitioner to resign% 8ther than (eing unsu(stantiated and self,serving, the allegation does not suffice to support the finding of force, inti#idation, and ulti#atel) constructive dis#issal% *are allegations of constructive dis#issal, when uncorro(orated () the evidence on record, cannot (e given credence%[27] $n #t. ichael Academy v. National Labor Relations Commission ,[2/] we ruled that #ere allegations of threat or force do not constitute su(stantial evidence to support a finding of forced resignation% Ae enu#erated the re@uisites for inti#idation to vitiate consent as follows7 (1) that the inti#idation caused the consent to (e given6 (2) that the threatened act (e un9ust or unlawful6 (!) that the threat (e real or serious, there (eing evident disproportion (etween the evil and the resistance which all #en can offer, leading to the choice of doing the act which is forced on the person to do as the lesser evil6 and (.) that it produces a well,grounded fear fro# the fact that the person fro# who# it co#es has the necessar) #eans or a(ilit) to inflict the threatened in9ur) to his person or propert)% F F F[20] 'one of the a(ove re@uisites was esta(lished () petitioner% 8ther than the allegation that :r% 2ecson inti#idated petitioner into resigning, there were no other proofs presented to support a finding of forced resignation to stand against respondentLs denial and proof against dis#issal% 'either can we consider the conduct of audits and other internal investigations as a for# of harass#ent against petitioner% -aid investigation was legiti#ate and 9ustified, conducted in view of the discover) of the ano#alous transaction involving the e#plo)ees of the respondent including petitioner% :oreover, we note that petitioner is holding a #anagerial position with a salar) of "27, % a #onth% 5ence, she is not an ordinar) e#plo)ee with li#ited understanding such that she would (e easil) #aneuvered or coerced to resign against her will%[! ] 2hus, we find no co#pelling reason to distur( the findings and conclusions of the Court of Appeals that petitioner voluntaril) resigned and was not constructivel) dis#issed () respondent% WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED% 2he Decision of the Court of Appeals dated August 1/, 2 = in CA,+%&% -" 'o% //1. which reversed and set aside the Decision of the '>&C and declared that petitioner voluntaril) resigned and was not constructivel) dis#issed fro# her e#plo)#ent, and conse@uentl) ordered the dis#issal of the co#plaint for constructive dis#issal, as well as the &esolution dated Dece#(er 1!, 2 = den)ing the #otion for reconsideration, are AFFIRMED% SO ORDERED