G.R. No. 105083 August 20, 1993
VIRGILIO CALLANTA, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, DISTILLERIA LIMTUACO CO., INC. and/or JULIUS T. LIMPE., as President and General Manager, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Virgilio Callanta was appointed as a sub-agent by respondent Distilleria Limtuaco Co., Inc. from June 18, 1986, to December 31, 1986, and was later promoted to National Promoter Salesman in October 1986. On April 28, 1987, a spot audit revealed a tentative shortage of P49,005.59 in his accounts. On April 30, 1987, petitioner submitted a resignation letter effective the same date. Seven months later, he wrote to respondent Julius T. Limpe claiming his resignation was false and demanding a refund of P76,465.81 and reinstatement. After his demands were ignored, he filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and monetary claims on March 21, 1988. The Labor Arbiter ruled in his favor, declaring the termination illegal and ordering reinstatement with backwages, a refund of P76,893.42, payment of P10,000.00 in allowances, and attorney’s fees. Respondent company appealed to the NLRC. The NLRC, in its decision dated September 10, 1991, reversed the Labor Arbiter, dismissed the complaint, and found the resignation valid. Petitioner filed this certiorari petition challenging the NLRC decision.

ISSUE

1. Whether the NLRC acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in not acting on petitioner’s motion for a writ of execution for immediate reinstatement.
2. Whether the NLRC acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in ruling that petitioner’s resignation letter was valid and effective, contrary to the Labor Arbiter’s finding that it was forced.
3. Whether the NLRC acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in failing to consider petitioner’s entitlement to a refund of P76,893.42 and an allowance of P10,000.00.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for lack of merit.
1. On the first issue, the Court held that petitioner was not entitled to immediate execution of the reinstatement order. The Labor Arbiter’s decision was rendered on February 16, 1989, and the appeal was filed on March 20, 1989. Republic Act No. 6715 , which amended Article 223 of the Labor Code to provide for immediate reinstatement pending appeal, took effect only on March 21, 1989, the day after the appeal was perfected. The law has no retroactive effect. Thus, the old rules applied, under which a perfected appeal stayed the execution of the Labor Arbiter’s decision. The appeal was perfected under the old rules, which required only the payment of the appeal fee and filing of a position paper within the period. The subsequent NLRC order to post a bond under the new law did not affect the perfection of the appeal. Furthermore, the motion for execution should have been filed with the Labor Arbiter, not the NLRC.
2. On the second issue, the Court upheld the NLRC’s finding that the resignation was voluntary. The resignation letter was clear and contained no hint of force or intimidation. Petitioner, a man of high educational attainment, is presumed to know the import of his actions. He did not withdraw his resignation promptly but waited seven months to contest it, which belied his claim of coercion.
3. On the third issue, the Court found petitioner’s monetary claims unsubstantiated. No formal hearing for evidence reception was conducted; the Labor Arbiter merely required position papers. The written summation of accounts supporting the refund claim was undated and unsigned, making it inadmissible and of uncertain authenticity. The claim for unpaid allowances was refuted by payment vouchers presented by the respondent company.