G.R. No. L-72977, December 21, 1988
Bienvenido R. Batongbacal, petitioner, vs. Associated Bank and National Labor Relations Commission, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Bienvenido R. Batongbacal was an Assistant Vice-President of Associated Bank, having served the bank and its predecessor entities since 1966. In March 1982, he discovered a significant disparity in his compensation compared to other assistant vice-presidents and formally requested a salary adjustment. His requests were ignored. Subsequently, on March 15, 1983, the bank’s Board of Directors approved a resolution requiring all officers with the rank of Manager and higher to submit their courtesy resignations immediately as part of a reorganization plan. Petitioner refused to submit his resignation.
On April 26, 1983, the bank informed petitioner that the Board had “accepted” his resignation effective immediately. He was barred from work and his salary was cut off. Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled in his favor, ordering reinstatement with full backwages, salary differentials, and substantial moral and exemplary damages. However, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed this decision on appeal. The NLRC upheld the dismissal as valid, characterizing it as a termination due to redundancy or retrenchment, and awarded only separation pay and accrued leave credits instead of reinstatement.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the dismissal of petitioner, an Assistant Vice-President, for refusing to submit a courtesy resignation as part of a corporate reorganization, constitutes a valid dismissal.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion and its decision was set aside. The legal logic proceeds as follows: First, the bank’s act of requiring courtesy resignations and then unilaterally declaring an employee’s resignation as “accepted” when none was tendered constitutes a dismissal, not a resignation. A resignation must be voluntary; it cannot be forced upon an employee. The bank failed to prove that the dismissal was for a just or authorized cause under the Labor Code. The mere invocation of “reorganization” is insufficient without clear evidence that petitioner’s position was truly redundant or that retrenchment was necessary to prevent losses.
Second, the NLRC erred in automatically classifying petitioner as a managerial employee without a factual basis. The determination of whether an employee is managerial, and thus not entitled to reinstatement under the prevailing doctrine at the time, depends on the actual powers and duties vested in him, not merely his job title. The Court found that the records were insufficient to conclusively establish petitioner’s managerial status, as his specific functions and the extent of his discretion were not thoroughly examined. Consequently, the case was remanded to the NLRC for a proper hearing to determine this factual issue and to assess petitioner’s entitlement to moral and exemplary damages, given the abrupt and unjust manner of his termination. The remand was ordered to ensure a complete resolution based on evidence, not merely on position papers.