G.R. No. 219419, April 10, 2019
CAROLINA'S LACE SHOPPE, LOURDES RAGAS AND CLAUDINE MANGASING, PETITIONERS, v. GLORIA MAQUILAN AND JOY MAQUILAN, RESPONDENTS.
D E C I S I O N
REYES, J. JR., J.:
Before us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the Decision2 dated October 8, 2014 and Resolution3 dated July 21, 2015 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 114357, which reversed and set aside the ruling of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered declaring complainants Gloria Maquilan and Joy Maquilan to have been illegally dismissed from their employment.Consequently, an appeal was filed by respondents before the NLRC.
Respondents Carolinas (sic) Lace Shoppe/Lourdes Ragas are hereby ordered to pay said complainants the amount of PhP132,890.16, representing their backwages and separation pay, respectively, and the total amount of PhP257,456.68, representing their other money claims, less the amount of PhP19,000.00 already received by them.
Complainants Eminda Tagalo and Santiago Espulteros (sic) case are hereby accordingly dismissed pursuant to Section 7, Rule V of the 2005 Revised Rules [of] Procedure of the NLRC.
Other claims are hereby denied for lack of merit.
WHEREFORE, the Appeal is hereby GRANTED and the decision of the Labor Arbiter is SET ASIDE. The respondents are, however, ORDERED to pay complainants their SIL pay based on the appended computation.A motion for reconsideration was filed by Gloria and Joy, which was denied for lack of merit in a Resolution17 dated March 26, 2010.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The January 8, 2010 Decision and March 26, 2010 Resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission (Seventh Division) in NLRC LAC No. 05-001173-09 (NLRC-NCR-05-08411-08) are ANNULLED and SET ASIDE; however, the portion of the fallo of said decision ordering payment by respondents of service incentive leave to petitioners shall STAND. The October 31, 2008 Decision of Labor Arbiter Daniel Dajilig is REINSTATED with the MODIFICATION that respondents shall only pay petitioners Gloria Maquilan and Joy Maquilan backwages, as separation pay as computed by the Labor Arbiter in his Decision.Gloria and Joy filed a Motion for Reconsideration, while CLS, Ragas and Mangasing filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration. The CA, in a Resolution20 dated July 21, 2015, denied both motions.
xxx. The act of the employee before and after the alleged resignation must be considered to determine whether in fact, he or she intended to relinquish such employment. If the employer introduces evidence purportedly executed by an employee as proof of voluntary resignation and the employee specifically denies the authenticity and due execution of said document, the employer is burdened to prove the due execution and genuineness of such document. (Emphasis and underscoring in the original; citation omitted)Verily, the acts preceding and subsequent to the employee's resignation must be taken into consideration.
May 31, 2008In the case of Mobile Protective & Detective Agency,26 this Court ruled that resignation letters which are in the nature of a quitclaim, lopsidedly worded to free the employer from liabilities reveal the absence of voluntariness. Moreover, the quitclaim contained in the resignation letter does not contain stipulations required for its efficacy. In the case of Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines (FASAP) v. Philippine Airlines, Inc.,27 this Court reiterated the ruling in EDI-Staffbuilders International, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission28 which laid down the basic contents of a valid and effective quitclaim, to wit:
CAROLINA'S LACE SHOPPE
To whom it may concern:
This is to tender my resignation effective at the close of office hours of May 31, 2008.
I would like to thank the management for the opportunity that you have given me during my stay with the company.
This resignation will serve as notice that I have received all the benefits, salaries, 13th month and service leave. I have no more claims of whatsoever against the company its owner or officers. This will serve as my clearance and quit claim.
(Sgd.) GLORIA MAQUILAN
In order to prevent disputes on the validity and enforceability of quitclaims and waivers of employees under Philippine laws, said agreements should contain the following:Admittedly, the quitclaim does not indicate that Gloria received the amount of P15,000.00 as full and final settlement. Similarly, there was nothing which indicates that said amount constitutes said full and final settlement. The quitclaim was also couched in general terms and the tenor of the same does not show that Gloria understood the importance of the same considering that on the same day that she resigned, she immediately relieved respondents from their liabilities. There was also no indication that Gloria intends to give up her claimed benefits in consideration of a fixed compromise amount. It must be emphasized that Gloria was constrained to receive the amount of P15,000.00 as she was eight months pregnant at that time and lives with no other means aside from her employment with CLS.
- A fixed amount as full and final compromise settlement;
- The benefits of the employees if possible with the corresponding amounts, which the employees are giving up in consideration of the fixed compromise amount;
- A statement that the employer has clearly explained to the employee in English, Filipino, or in the dialect known to the employees - that by signing the waiver or quitclaim, they are forfeiting or relinquishing their right to receive the benefits which are due them under the law; and
- A statement that the employees signed and executed the document voluntarily, and had fully understood the contents of the document and that their consent was freely given without any threat, violence, duress, intimidation, or undue influence exerted on their person.29 (Emphasis supplied)
1Rollo, pp. 26-47.
2 Penned by Associate Justice Melchor Q.C. Sadang, with Associate Justices Celia C. Librea-Leagogo and Franchito N. Diamante, concurring; id at 9-20.
3 Id. at 22-23.
4 Id. at 10.
6 Id. at 159.
8 Id. at 160.
10 Id. at 158.
11 Id. at 10.
12 Id. at 11.
13 Penned by Labor Arbiter Daniel J. Cajilig; id at 158-164.
14 Id. at 164.
15 Penned by Commissioner Numeriano D. Villena, with Presiding Commissioner Herminio V. Suelo a Commissioner Angelo Ang Palana, concurring; id at 102-109.
16 Id. at 108.
17 Id. at 110-114.18 Supra note 2.
19 Id. at 19.
20 Supra note 3.
21Doble, Jr. v. ABB, Inc./Nitin Desai, 810 Phil. 210, 228-229 (2017).
22 514 Phil. 317 (2005).
23 G.R. No. 229881, September 5, 2018.
24Mobile Protective & Detective Agency v. Ompad, 497 Phil. 621, 630 (2005).
25Rollo, p. 144.
27 G.R. No. 178083, March 13, 2018.
28 563 Phil. 1 (2007).
29 Id. at 33.
30Rollo, p. 148.
31Spouses Martires v. Chua, 707 Phil. 34, 47 (2013).
32Torreda v. Investment and Capital Corporation of the Philippines, supra note 23.