THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 250205, February 17, 2021
JOHN ROGER NIÑO S. VERGARA, Petitioner, v. ANZ GLOBAL SERVICES AND OPERATIONS MANILA, INC., Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
INTING, J.:
This Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeks to annul and set aside the Decision2 dated January 17, 2019 and the Resolution3 dated October 24, 2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 151874.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered DISMISSING the instant complaint for lack of merit.Both parties appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).
However, respondent ANZ Global Services and Operations Manila, Inc. is directed to pay complainant Vergara the sum of P93,750.00 as proportionate 13th month pay for 2016.
All other claims are dismissed for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.19
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the 15 February 2017 Decision of Labor Arbiter Marita V. Padolina is MODIFIED. Respondent ANZ GLOBAL SERVICES AND OPERATIONS MANILA, INC. is ordered to PAY complainant:Respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision dated 27 April 2017)23 of the NLRC Resolution, but the NLRC denied it in a Resolution24 dated June 23, 2017.
1) separation pay equivalent to one (1) month pay for every year of service (P150,000.00 x 6) or P900,000.00; and, 2) proportionate 13th month pay for 2016 in the amount of P93,750.00[.]
All other claims are hereby DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.22
Guided by the acknowledged principle in labor law, We are of the view that [respondent] has sufficiently established by substantial evidence its acceptance of [petitioner's] resignation. To Our mind, the affidavits of Nicola Hutton and Kristine Gorospe, coupled with the emails from the company and [petitioner], constituted the required proof in administrative proceedings.27Petitioner moved for reconsideration, but the CA denied it in the Resolution28 dated October 24, 2019.
x x x [T]he Labor Arbiter held that the triggering of the ELA (Employee Leaving Advice) in the company's system amounted to an acceptance of complainant's resignation.Indeed, Gorospe's act of "triggering" the ELA, following petitioner's tender of resignation, cannot at all be taken as respondent's acceptance of the resignation. Even respondent itself claimed that the ELA was just proof that it, through Gorospe, had acted on the resignation letter. That it was not an act of acceptance on the part of respondent of petitioner's resignation is proven by the nature and contents of the email dated August 19, 2016 about ELA. The email sender was [email protected], addressed to Gorospe, with subject "For action: Employee Leaving Advice next steps." The contents of the email are as follows:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
The Labor Arbiter erred.
Record shows that the ELA is a mere report triggered by a Line Manager as an advice that an employee under him or her is resigning. It cannot equate to an acceptance as contemplated by law since the same is addressed to ANZ's Human Resources - via the People Soft Manager Self-Service - and not to the employee x x x.
Further, it was error for the Labor Arbiter to give credence to respondents' allegation that the issuance of a RAF to resigning employees has already been scrapped by ANZ. The affidavits of Gorospe and Hutton to this effect are insufficient and self-serving. Moreover, such allegation is contradicted by respondents' own documentary evidence as attached to their Position Paper entitled "Manila Hub Off-boarding Process" which reads:x x x
x x x [R]espondents attached another document denominated as Exits - Line Manager activities page in Max ("MAX") which they claim is ANZ's current procedure for accepting resignations of employees. According to respondents, the RAF is no longer issued under this new procedure and fue Line Manager immediately proceeds to Step 2 of the policy. There is however no memorandum or any other evidence presented to prove that the RAF had indeed been done away. x x x35
The Employee Leaving Advice request you submitted for John Roger Niño Vergara (Employee ID: 756177) has been sent to HR Operations.Further, it was error for the CA to consider the affidavits of Gorospe and Hutton as proof that respondent had accepted petitioner's resignation. Not only are their statements self-serving, but also, nothing in their affidavits shows any hint of respondent's acceptance of petitioner's resignation.
Processing of the termination can not proceed and John Roger Niño Vergara can not receive final payment, until you have provided all documentation as outlined in the Exit Checklist.x x x36
Whereas, Hutton's affidavit reads:chanroblesvirtualawlibraryx x x
3. Vergara approached my workstation to personally hand me his resignation letter in the morning of 05 August, 2016. Telstra offered him a job several days ago and he has been contemplating on accepting the offer since.
4. Vergara mentioned that his resignation ultimately depended on his successful application for the position of Information Security Manager ("Manager position") also in ANZ, which would be a promotion. He informed me that he had not signed with Telstra as of that day but was given only until 11 August 2016 to confirm his acceptance.
5. After our conversation, I left his resignation letter on my desk and deliberately deferred his exit in PeopleSoft as he was still pursuing the Manager position. I came upon his resignation letter again when I was fixing my things before heading home that same day, which I signed before keeping it away.
6. During the week of 08 August 2016, Vergara informed me that he had an upcoming interview with Elmer Mendoza for the Manager position.
7. On 11 August 2016, Vergara informed me that he had formally accepted Telstra's job offer to meet the deadline. However, he was still waiting for the results of his application for the Manager position.
8. In the week of 15 August 2016, he sought my advice on whether to accept the Manager position and retract his acceptance of Telstra's job offer. In the course of our conversation, he said that he was also seeking the advice of his mentors on which position to pursue.
9. On 18, August 2016, Vergara approached me when I arrived at work in the morning. We then proceeded to me meeting room where he informed me of his final decision to pursue the Telstra position to which I responded with an "okay". The following day on 19 August 2016, I triggered the Employee Leaving Advice x x x
10. On 30 August 2016, a few hours after learning that the restructuring impacted his role, he approached his Skip line Manager, Roscoe Pineda, and me to ask if he can withdraw his resignation. We responded "no[.]"
11. I only saw Vergara's email withdrawing his resignation on 6 September 2016 when I opened my email in the evening as I was on sick leave.x x x37
The Court cannot likewise lend credence to the contention that respondent has done away with the RAF. Hutton alleged this in her affidavit as quoted above. According to her, it is "company practice" to no longer issue the RAF. The Court finds the allegation unacceptable; it is a mere allegation of "company practice" that cannot belie the proved company policy on issuance of the RAF.x x x
- As the Head of HR, it is part of my duties to process and document the resignation of ANZ GSO employees.
- The Resignation Acceptance Form is not used in the resignation or Off-Boarding process and has been scrapped. Company practice in case of resignation is to by-pass the Resignation Acceptance Form and immediately proceeds to Step 2 of the Off-Boarding policy, viz[.]:
"2. Line Manager should process next steps as per Finishing at ANZ menu in MSS, specifically the following forms:
• Inform HR of a Resignation in my team
• Inform other departments of a resignation/termination in my team-Off Boarding Notification"- In fact the current policies and procedures provided in the Exits Line Manager activities page in Max ("Max") show that there is no Resignation Acceptance Form that is issued by the line manager. x x x38
For cases of RESIGNATION:
Upon receipt of resignation letter Line Manager 1. Upon acceptance of the employee's resignation letter, Line Manager to accomplish the Resignation Acceptance Form (RAF) found m the Finishing at ANZ menu in MSS, together with the employee's resignation letter. A copy of the RAF is provided to the employee.
2. Line Manager should process next steps as per Finishing at ANZ menu in MSS, specifically the following forms:
• Inform HR of a Resignation in my team
• Inform other departments of a resignation/termination in my team - Off Boarding Notification39
Endnotes:
* Designated additional member per Raffle dated February 10, 2021.
1Rollo, Vol. 1, pp. 19-45.
2Id. at 49-57; penned by Associate Justice Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr. with Associate Justices Ramon R. Garcia and Jhosep Y. Lopez (now member of the Court), concurring.
3Id. at 59-60.
4Id. at 330.
5 Per Resignation Letter sent by John Roger Niño S. Vergara, Kristine Gorospe was referred as the Head of Governance and Regulatory, Risk Services.
6Rollo, p. 50.
7Id.
8Id. at 332.
9Id. at 333.
10Id. at 334.
11Id. at 51.
12Id. at 174.
13Id.
14 Co-respondents in the Labor Arbiter (LA) and National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) proceedings.
15Rollo, Vol. 1, pp. 174-175.
16 Case docketed as NLRC NCR-00-10-13078-2016 as penned by LA Marita V. Padolina, id. at 63-74.
17Id. at 74.
18Id. at 71.
19Id. at 74.
20 Case docketed as NLRC NCR-00-10-13078-2016/NLRC LAC No. 03-001199-17 as penned by Commissioner Pablo C. Espiritu, Jr. with Presiding Commissioner Alex A. Lopez, concurring and Commissioner Cecilio Alejandro C. Villanueva, on leave, id. at 172-179.
21Id. at 177.
22Id. at 178-179.
23Id. at 180-187.
24Id. at 195-196.
25Id. at 198-227.
26Id. at 49-57.
27Id. at 56.
28Id. at 59-60.
29Doctor, et al. v. NII Enterprises. et al., 821 Phil. 251, 264 (2017).
30Id.
31Coca-Cola Femsa Philippines, Inc. v. Congress of Independent Organization-Iloilo Coca-Cola Sales Force Union, Panay Chapter, G.R. No. 240493 (Notice), June 19, 2019.
32Doctor, et al. v. NII Enterprises, et al., supra note 29.
33Id., citing Marlow Navigation Philippines, Inc., et al. v. Heirs of Ricardo S. Ganal, et al., 810 Phil. 956, 961 (2017).
34Shie Jie Corp. v. National Federation of Labor, 502 Phil. 143, 149-150 (2005), citing Dr. Reyes v. Court of Appeals, 456 Phil. 520, 535 (2003), further citing Indophil Acrylic Mfg. Corporation v. NLRC, 297 Phil. 803 (1993).
35Rollo, pp. 175-176.
36Id. at 331.
37Id. at 339-340.
38 As culled from the LA Decision dated February 15, 2017, id. at 71-72.
39Id. at 335.
40Valencia v. Classique Vinyl of Products Corporation, et al., 804 Phil. 492, 504 (2017).cralawredlibrary