G.R. No. 122876 February 17, 2000
Cheniver Deco Print Technics Corporation, petitioner, vs. National Labor Relations Commission (Second Division), CFW-Magkakaisang Lakas ng mga Manggagawa sa Cheniver Deco Print Technic Corporation, Edgardo Viguesilla, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Cheniver Deco Print Technics Corporation, a printing business, informed its employees in June 1992 of its necessary relocation from Makati to Sto. Tomas, Batangas. This move was due to the expiration of its lease and pressure from local authorities over alleged hazards. The company set a schedule, with operations ceasing in Makati on June 29, 1992, a shutdown in July for the transfer, and a restart at the new site on August 1, 1992. It required employees to report to Batangas, warning that failure would be deemed a loss of interest leading to replacement. The respondent union members initially expressed unwillingness to transfer but later indicated a decision to continue working. However, none reported to the new location. Sixteen employees accepted financial assistance, but the remaining workers, the private respondents, filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and monetary claims.
The Labor Arbiter ruled the transfer was valid and absolved petitioner of illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice. Nonetheless, the Arbiter ordered petitioner to pay the private respondents separation pay and other monetary claims. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed this decision on appeal but deleted the award for attorney’s fees. Petitioner then filed this certiorari petition, arguing the award of separation pay and other monetary claims was without legal and factual basis.

ISSUE

Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the award of separation pay and other monetary benefits to the private respondents.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the NLRC resolutions. The legal logic is anchored on the principle of constructive dismissal. While the company’s relocation due to lease expiration and regulatory pressure was a valid exercise of management prerogative, the effects on the employees constituted a termination of employment not of their own making. The transfer to a distant location (from Makati to Batangas) effectively resulted in the employees’ separation from service against their will, which is inconsistent with a voluntary resignation. Resignation requires a clear, voluntary intent to relinquish employment, which is belied by the employees’ immediate filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal. Consequently, the separation was tantamount to a termination, warranting the payment of separation pay under the circumstances. The Court also found no merit in petitioner’s ancillary claims regarding forum shopping or prior satisfaction of the monetary awards, as the other cases involved distinct issues and the earlier wage order pertained to a mandated increase, not the benefits adjudicated here. Thus, no grave abuse of discretion attended the NLRC’s decision.