G.R. No. 250205 , February 17, 2021
John Roger Niño S. Vergara, Petitioner, vs. ANZ Global Services and Operations Manila, Inc., Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner John Roger Niño S. Vergara was hired by respondent ANZ Global Services and Operations Manila, Inc. on November 30, 2010. On August 5, 2016, he tendered his resignation, with September 6, 2016 as his intended last day. On August 15, 2016, he learned of a company restructuring that included his position and offered a lump sum severance payment. On September 1, 2016, he found that his Resignation Acceptance Form (RAF) had not been signed. On September 5, 2016, he formally withdrew his resignation via email. The Head of Risk Services replied that the resignation would take effect the next day but suggested he confirm with Human Resources (HR). On September 6, 2016, the HR head informed him via email that his resignation had been accepted and could no longer be withdrawn. Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint, finding voluntary resignation accepted through the Line Manager’s act of triggering an Employee Leaving Advice (ELA) in the company system. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed, ruling the resignation was ineffectual due to lack of acceptance, and petitioner had validly withdrawn it; thus, he was entitled to separation pay under the restructuring program. The Court of Appeals reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s decision, finding acceptance was sufficiently established.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding that there was an acceptance of petitioner’s resignation prior to his retraction thereof.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the Court of Appeals, and reinstated the NLRC Resolutions. Acceptance of a resignation is necessary to make it effective. The Court found no such acceptance was shown. The Line Manager’s act of triggering the ELA was merely an advice to HR that an employee was resigning, not an act of acceptance communicated to the employee. The company’s claim that the RAF was no longer used was insufficiently proven and contradicted by its own documentary evidence. The affidavits of company officials were self-serving and did not establish acceptance. Petitioner validly withdrew his resignation on September 5, 2016, prior to its effective date and prior to any clear acceptance by the respondent. Consequently, the employer-employee relationship subsisted at the time of the restructuring announcement, entitling petitioner to separation pay equivalent to one month pay for every year of service, plus proportionate 13th month pay.