EXECUTION OF A FINAL SETTLEMENT AND RECEIPT OF AMOUNTS AGREED UPON DO NOT FORECLOSE THE RIGHT TO PURSUE A CLAIM FOR ILLEGAL DISMISSAL.

Silvertex Weaving Corporaton vs. Campo
G.R. No. 211411, March 16, 2016

Facts:

Respondent Teodora F.  Campo claimed  that  she  worked  for  Silvertex Weaving Corporaton (STWC) as  a weaving  machine  operator. Prior to her  dismissal,  she  was  suspended  for  one   week after  a  stitching  machine  that  she  was  operating overheated  and  emitted  smoke  on.    When she tried to report back to work, she was denied entry by the STWC’s security guard, reportedly upon the instructions of Arcenal.

For their  defense,  the  petitioners  argued  that  the  respondent voluntarily  resigned  from  STWC  after she  was  reprimanded  for  poor  job  performance.   They  submitted  a handwritten  resignation  letter allegedly  executed  by  the  respondent  together  with  the  Waiver,  Release  and  Quitclaims Statement that  she  supposedly  signed  following  her  receipt  of ₱30,000.00 from STWC. The respondent, however, denied having executed the  resignation  letter,  the  quitclaim,  and  the  supposed  receipt of the ₱30,000.00.

LA Ruling:

After finding merit in the documentary evidence presented by the petitioners, the Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision dismissing the complaint for lack of merit.   Dissatisfied, the  respondent  appealed  to  the  National  Labor Relations  Commission  (NLRC).

NLRC Ruling:

The  NLRC issued  its  Resolution initially  granting  the  appeal. Upon  Motion  for  Reconsideration,  the NLRC  however reinstated  and  affirmed  in  toto  the  decision  of  LA.  It heavily  considered  a  Questioned  Document  Report  (QDR) from  the  Philippine  National  Police  (PNP)  Crime  Laboratory,  which purportedly  indicated  that  upon  examination,  the  disputed  signatures  on the  resignation  letter  and  quitclaim  were  written  by  the  respondent. The burden  to  disprove  the  authenticity  of  the  submitted  documents allegedly  fell  upon  the  respondent,  through  evidence  other  than a bare denial.

CA Ruling:

Feeling aggrieved, the respondent filed with the CA a petition for certiorari, which was later granted by the CA. Hence, the petition.

Issue/s:

Whether or not the resignation and quitclaim were valid

SC Ruling:

The SC denied the petition.

The  employer  has  the  burden  of  proving  that  the employee was not dismissed, or, if dismissed, that the dismissal was not illegal. The petitioners attempted  to  discharge  the  burden  of  proving  the respondent’s  resignation  by  referring  mainly  to  a  letter  allegedly executed  by  the  respondent.

There were conflicting findings in the PNP QDR. The report mentions that alleged resignation letter did not appear to be written by the  same  person  who  signed  the  several  payroll  slips and Philhealth records although it matched the supposed handwriting of the respondent in her bio-data.

Clearly then, given the vehement claim of the respondent that her signature on  the  resignation  letter  was  a  mere  forgery,  the  evidence presented  by  the  petitioners  to  establish  their  defense  of  voluntary resignation failed to suffice.  Several other indicators cast doubt on the letter’s authenticity.

The authenticity and due execution of the undated Waiver, Release and Quitclaims Statement purportedly signed by the respondent was also not sufficiently established. The QDR was not conclusive on the issue of its genuineness. Even granting that such document was actually executed by the respondent, its execution was not fatal to the respondent’s case for illegal dismissal. The finding of illegal dismissal could still stand, as jurisprudence provides that “[a ]n employee’s execution of a final settlement and receipt of amounts agreed upon do not foreclose his right to pursue a claim for illegal dismissal.