G.R. No. 122046 January 16, 1998
METRO TRANSIT ORGANIZATION, INC., petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and RAMON M. GARCIA, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Ramon M. Garcia started working with petitioner Metro Transit Organization, Inc. (METRO) as a station teller in November 1984. On April 22, 1992, he called his immediate supervisor, Carlos Limuaco, to ask for a leave of absence to go to Cebu to look for his wife and children who had left home. After an unsuccessful search, he returned to Manila and reported to the office on May 15, 1992. He was not allowed to resume work and was directed to the legal department for investigation. There, Investigating Officer Noel Pili asked about his absence. After Garcia explained his family problem, Pili advised him it would be better to resign than be terminated for his absences. Garcia, in a state of agitation and weighed down by his family problem, immediately prepared a resignation letter. The Personnel Committee of METRO approved his resignation on June 4, 1992. Garcia later sought help from his union president, requesting intervention through the grievance machinery, but METRO rejected his plea. On December 15, 1992, Garcia filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. Petitioner maintained that Garcia absented himself without official leave and voluntarily resigned to establish his own business.

ISSUE

Whether or not the resignation of Ramon M. Garcia was voluntary, and consequently, whether he was illegally dismissed.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the decisions of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC that Garcia was illegally dismissed. The Court found that Garcia’s resignation was not voluntary. The circumstances showed that the resignation was an offshoot of his meeting with Noel Pili, who presented him with the option to resign or face termination for abandonment. Garcia, who was confused and burdened by a serious family problem, prepared the resignation letter immediately after the meeting without time for reflection. His subsequent consultation with his union president indicated he did not knowingly and voluntarily resign. The Court upheld the factual findings of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC, noting that Garcia had a stable eight-year employment with no prior violations, and his filing of the complaint negated abandonment or voluntary resignation. The compulsion to choose between resigning or being terminated placed undue pressure on Garcia, rendering his resignation ineffective. Therefore, his termination was without just cause, entitling him to reinstatement and back wages.