RESIGNATION LETTER THAT LACKS RELUCTANCE, TENSION, AND EXPRESSES GRATITUDE, WELL WISHES, WITHOUT QUALIFICATION AND WITHOUT ANY SIGN OF AGGRESSION AND BITTERNESS OR HOSTILITY TOWARDS EMPLOYER NEGATES CLAIM OF INVOLUNTARINESS

In Bilbao vs. Saudi Arabian Airlines, the Court found as voluntary the resignation of the complainant, whose clear use of words of appreciation and gratitude negated the notion that she was forced and coerced to resign. Likewise, the Court held in Rodriquez vs. Park N Ride Inc .. et al., that the petitioner-employee voluntarily resigned as evidenced in part by her submission of two resignation letters containing words of gratitude.

Thus, the SC held in this March 2019 case, as follows:

Panasonic Manufacturing Philippines Corporation vs. Peckson
G.R. No. 206316, March 20, 2019

Resignation; Voluntariness in resignation; Lack of reluctance or tension, expression of gratitude and well wishes, without qualification, and without any sign of aggression, bitterness, or hostility towards his employer negate involuntariness; Release and quitclaim; Voluntary agreements, which include quitclaims, entered into and represented by a reasonable settlement are binding on the parties which may not be later disowned simply because of a change of mind; Only where there is clear and substantial proof that the waiver was wangled from an unsuspecting or gullible person, or the tems of the settlement are unconscionable, that the law will step in to bail out the employee; Belated filing of complaint; The belated filing of a complaint supports the contention that it was mere afterthought

Facts:

Respondent John V. Peckson (Peckson) was formerly employed as a Sales Supervisor for the Battery Department of petitioner Panasonic Manufacturing Philippines Corporation (Panasonic). The legal controversy started when in a letter dated September 16, 2003, Peckson expressed his intention to resign effective on October 30, 2003.

In a subsequent letter dated September 25, 2003, Peckson informed Panasonic that he wished to change the effectivity of his resignation instead to October 15, 2003. On April 11, 2005, Peckson filed a complaint for constructive dismissal with the NLRC, with claims for payment of separation pay in lieu of reinstatement with full back wages, non-payment of 13^th month pay and other benefits, moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees against Panasonic and Jose De Jesus (De Jesus) in the latter’s personal capacity as Manager of Peckson’s former Battery Sales Department.

In the complaint, Peckson alleged that he was forced to resign by De Jesus after the latter accused him of falsifying De Jesus’ signature in an “‘Authority to Travel” form. In an effort to disprove De Jesus’ accusations, Peckson had proceeded to the Philippine National Police (PNP) to have the controversial “Authority to Travel” form examined, and also submitted several other documents signed by De Jesus as a way to compare the signatures and prove that it was De Jesus who had indeed signed the form.

Based on its findings, the PNP Crime Laboratory reported that the signature of De Jesus appearing on the “Authority to Travel” form and on the other submitted documents was written by one and the same person. Peckson alleged that he submitted the report findings alongside two Affidavit-Complaints infonning the Personnel Department of the lack of merit in De Jesus’ claim of falsification, and that he, Peckson, was placed on “floating status” solely to be the subject of ridicule. However, De Jesus allegedly told Peckson that he was disregarding the PNP report and threatened to terminate Peckson’ s employment the very next day, prompting Peckson to end his employment with the company and subsequently file the complaint.

Read more digested cases of critical labor decisions from Digest of Critical Decisions of the Supreme Court on Labor Cases (also available in all National Bookstore and Fully Booked branches nationwide)

To these allegations, Panasonic maintained that Peckson voluntarily resigned from work, as seen in the tenor of his two resignation letters, his willing completion of the exit interview and the clearance procedure, as well as his signing of a quitclaim and release.

LA Ruling:

The LA dismissed the complaint for lack of merit.

The LA ruled that Peckson’ s resignation was a voluntary act. Peckson’s submission of not one, but two resignation letters, as well as his complete performance of the exit procedure, clearly showed the voluntariness on his part.

The LA also pointed to Peckson’ s alleged conduct during his exit interview when asked his reason for leaving, wherein he answered that he would be working in another company. Also, the fact that Peckson filed his complaint 18 months after his resignation did not escape the notice of the LA, who opined that the lapse of a considerably long period of time erodes the integrity of Peckson’s claim, as it did not seem to be the actuation of an aggrieved party.

Peckson filed an appeal with the NLRC.

NLRC Ruling:

The NLRC dismissed the appeal for being filed out of time.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the NLRC gave due course to the appeal. However, it concurred with the finding of the LA that Peckson’ s act of resigning was clearly voluntary and belied his claim of constructive dismissal.

The NLRC found that there was nothing on record to prove the allegations in the complaint, and that even on appeal, Peckson failed to present evidence substantial enough to support any of his claims. As such, the NLRC affirmed the decision of the LA in toto.

Hence, a petition was filed before the CA.

CA Ruling:

The CA reversed the decisions of the lower tribunal.

The CA found that Panasonic did not sufficiently discharge its burden to prove that Peckson’s resignation was voluntary, and that it failed to overcome the burden to prove that Peckson was validly placed on “floating status. ” As De Jesus made Peckson believe that the latter would be reinstated after he filed his resignation, the CA found that Peckson was constructively dismissed, and as such he was entitled to his full backwages including his 13^th month pay and other benefits.

Panasonic’s Motion for Reconsideration was denied. Hence, the Petition before the SC.

Issue/s:

Whether or not a resignation which lacks reluctance, tension, and bearing expression of gratitude and well wishes, without qualification, and without any sign of aggression, bitterness, or hostility towards his employer negate involuntariness

Whether or not the employee’s claim of being coerced to sign the quitclaim and release prosper in the absence of substantial evidence proving the same

Whether or not the belated filing of complaint highlights the lack of merit in employee’s accusations

SC Ruling:

The SC found the petition meritorious.

The company aptly proved that Peckson’s resignation letters showed the voluntariness of his separation from Panasonic. While the fact of filing a resignation letter alone does not shift the burden of proof, and it is still incumbent upon the employer to prove that the employee voluntarily resigned, in this case, the facts show that the resignation letters are grounded in Peckson ‘s desire to leave the company as opposed to any deceitful machination or coercion on the part of Panasonic.

The very contents of the letters show not only any lack of reluctance or tension on the part of Peckson, but in fact express gratitude and well wishes, without qualification, nor do they show any sign of aggression, bitterness, or hostility towards his former employer.

In Bilbao vs. Saudi Arabian Airlines, the Court found as voluntary the resignation of the complainant, whose clear use of words of appreciation and gratitude negated the notion that she was forced and coerced to resign. Likewise, the Court held in Rodriquez vs. Park N Ride Inc .. et al., that the petitioner-employee voluntarily resigned as evidenced in part by her submission of two resignation letters containing words of gratitude.

Acquire Mastery on HR/Labor Rules, Doctrines, and Principles through HR Bundle Books by Atty. Villanueva

The Court finds that Peckson’s subsequent and contemporaneous actions belie his claim that he was subjected to harassment on the part of Panasonic. Peckson neglected to show any sign that he had reached out to company management regarding his alleged complaints with De Jesus or any other employee of Panasonic, and if he did, he failed to show the same.

It would stand to reason that if Peckson had legitimate grievances, he would have raised them up with management. While Peckson alleges that he sent two complaint-affidavits detailing the acts of abuse heaped on him, as well as his being put on floating status, the Court notes that Peckson was unable to proffer any proof that he sent these to Panasonic. The lack of any proof that he did, without any evidence of intimidation or coercion, should highlight the intangibility of these accusations.

Even when given the opportunity to alert management regarding his grievances during the last days of his employment with Panasonic, Peckson conspicuously failed to do so. Thus, Peckson’s assertion that he was instructed to express gratitude in his letter cannot be used as proof of the company’s alleged transgressions, as the same is self-serving and uncorroborated by any substantial evidence. Also, Peckson’s claim that he was put on floating status after he was allegedly instructed to file a resignation letter does not hold water. It makes no sense for an employee to file a resignation letter solely based on an alleged promise that said employee would be later reinstated by the company. This, especially as Peckson’s only proof of said arrangement is the conversation he had with management, which, again, is supported by nothing but his bare testimony.

Likewise does the Court find untenable Peckson’s claim that he was merely coerced into signing the quitclaim and release. The Court has previously held that voluntary agreements, which include quitclaims, entered into and represented by a reasonable settlement are binding on the parties which may not be later disowned simply because of a change of mind. It is only where there is clear and substantial proof that the waiver was wangled from an unsuspecting or gullible person, or the terms of the settlement are unconscionable, that the law will step in to bail out the employee.

In Iladan vs. La Suerte Int’l Manpower Agency, Inc., et al., the Court struck down an employee’s assertion that she did not resign voluntarily and there was an in-egularity in her Release, Waiver, and Quitclaim form, using as basis the lack of evidence of such, as well as her actions indicating otherwise.

As Peckson failed to present any relevant evidence aside from his own self-serving declarations, the Court cannot countenance his claims especially considering the legal dictum that he who asserts, not he who denies, must prove. In the absence of such, the Court must rely on the actual proof presented as evidence, i.e., the resignation letters of Peckson showing his voluntary separation from the company, and not the mere allegations of fraud and deception that have characterized Peckson’s grievances as the latter tried to explain his apparent involuntary resignation.

In summation, Peckson failed to show any substantial evidence that he was treated unfairly and, thus, he was forced to resign. As supposed proof, Peckson only produced his affidavits and the PNP Crime Laboratory Report. He failed to show any tangible acts of harassment, insults, and any abuse that would warrant a possible finding of constructive dismissal.

Even Peckson’s belated filing of a complaint highlight the lack of merit to his accusations, especially as he was unable to give any valid reason why he hesitated in filing the same. This sort of delay has already been held to be supportive proof that the resignation leaned more towards being voluntary a mere afterthought.

In Vicente vs. CA, the Court held that though the complaint was filed within the 4-year prescriptive period, its belated filing supports the contention of respondent that it was a mere afterthought.

Peckson was not able to overcome his burden to prove that his resignation was involuntary. Nor was he able to properly assail with his own evidence Panasonic’s proof that he left of his own accord. Thus, the CA erred in deviating from the findings of both the LA and the NLRC, findings, which, upon our own independent review, show without a shadow of the doubt the voluntariness of Peckson ‘s actions and separation from work.

Draft and Formulate Your HR/Labor Forms, Notices and Contracts with Ease using HR Forms 1 Soft Copy (150+ Editable Templates in Word Document)