ITALKARAT 18 v. Gerasmio (2020)
See: Original Decision
ITALKARAT 18, Inc. v. Gerasmio, G.R. No. 221411, 28 September 2020, Per Hernando, J.:
1. Background
⦁ On January 13, 2009, [the Complainant] filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, reinstatement, backwages, separation pay, declaration of the quitclaim and release as null and void, 13th month pay, litigation expenses, damages and attorney’s fees, against [the Company].
⦁ [The Complainant] alleged that the Company hired him on June 1, 1990. In 1993, he was designated as the Maintenance Head and Tool and Die Maker until his dismissal on November 20, 2008 on the ground of serious business losses. He claimed that during and prior to the last quarter of 2008, the Company had repeatedly informed its employees of its proposed retrenchment program because it was suffering from serious business losses. In particular, [the Complainant] claimed that [N.] San Pedro (San Pedro), the then Officer-In-Charge (OIC)/Manager of the Company, informed him sometime in November 2008 that the Company was planning to retrench a substantial number of workers in the Maintenance and Tool and Die Section; and that if he opts to retire early, he will be given a sum of P170,000.00. San Pedro then allegedly cautioned [the Complainant] that if he will not accept the offer to retire early, the Company would eventually retrench or terminate him from his employment, in which case, he might not even receive anything.
⦁ In light of the foregoing, [the Complainant] executed and signed a resignation letter and quitclaim on November 20, 2008. He was then informed to return on November 25, 2008 to get his check worth P170,000.00.10 However, to his dismay, [the Complainant] was later informed by San Pedro that he would be receiving only the amount of P26,901.34.11 Thus, [the Complainant], through his lawyer, sent a letter dated November 25, 2008, essentially demanding the amount of P170,000.00 he was allegedly promised earlier. Since the Company did not respond, [the Complainant] filed the instant complaint for illegal dismissal.
⦁ On the other hand, the Company essentially alleged that [the Complainant] voluntarily resigned from his job, thus, his claims are baseless. The Company admitted that it hired [the Complainant] as maintenance personnel on December 1, 1989. It further alleged that during the last year of his employment, [the Complainant] took leaves of absence in order to process his papers for a possible seaman’s job.
⦁ Moreover, the Company stated that on October 20, 2008, [the Complainant] tendered his resignation and demanded from the Company the payment of his separation pay on account of his long years of service. On November 6, 2008 and on November 20, 2008 respectively, he executed and signed a waiver and quitclaim which shows, inter alia, the computation of his receivables. He then signed the voucher for this purpose and thereafter received the check issued to him representing his last pay. Surprisingly, he send a demand letter, through his lawyer, on November 28, 2008, for the payment of P170,000.00 in addition to the amount already received by him. The Company refused to pay him the additional amount for lack of basis in law and in fact.
2. SC Decision / Resolution
⦁ [The Complainant] clearly has the burden of proving that he was dismissed by the Company, in light of the Company’s allegation that he resigned voluntarily and was not dismissed. Hence, [the Complainant] must first prove that he was actually dismissed by the Company before the legality of such dismissal can even be raised as an issue.
⦁ However, even a cursory perusal of the evidence on record would show that [the Complainant] failed to prove the fact of dismissal. He relied primarily on his allegations that he was misled by the Company into resigning and that he was actually retrenched. These uncorroborated and self-serving allegations, especially considering the existence of a resignation letter and a quitclaim (both bearing [the Complainant’s] signature), fall short of the evidence required under the law to discharge [the Complainant’s] burden to prove that he was dismissed by the Company.
⦁ To illustrate the aforementioned point, in Gemina, Jr. v. Bankwise, Inc., we ruled that the employee had indeed failed to state circumstances substantiating his claim of constructive dismissal as the employee therein had not claimed to have suffered a demotion in rank or diminution in pay or other benefits. Instead, the said employee only claimed to have been subjected to several acts of harassment by several officers of the employer-company, including being asked to take a forced leave of absence, demanding back the employee’s service vehicle, and delaying the release of employee’s salaries and allowances in order to compel him to quit employment…
