G.R. No. 149273; June 5, 2009
BIENVENIDO C. GILLES, Petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, SCHEMA KONSULT, and EDGARDO ABORES, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Bienvenido C. Gilles was an incorporator, stockholder, Vice-President, and Principal Engineer of respondent Schema Konsult, Inc. (SKI). In 1993, SKI entered into an agreement with Carl Bro International (CBI) to provide a qualified aquaculture engineer for a shrimp farm project in India. Gilles was assigned to this project under an agreement stipulating he was a regular employee of SKI, with a monthly salary and a subsistence allowance. Prior to his departure, Gilles received a $5,000 advance on his allowance. While in India, he received additional funds for expenses.
On May 10, 1993, citing serious personal and financial problems affecting his work, Gilles tendered an irrevocable resignation to CBI, effective May 15, 1993. He left India on May 11. CBI informed SKI’s president, Edgardo Abores, that Gilles’s abrupt departure created a critical situation and that his work had been unsatisfactory. Upon his return, Gilles was asked to explain his resignation at a board meeting. Subsequently, SKI terminated Gilles’s employment and demanded reimbursement for the advanced allowance and other expenses, claiming his resignation constituted abandonment and caused financial damage.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the dismissal of Gilles’s complaint for illegal dismissal and in ordering him to reimburse the monetary advances.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. The legal logic is anchored on the principle that an employee who resigns voluntarily is not entitled to reinstatement or backwages. Gilles’s resignation letter to CBI was clear, voluntary, and unconditional, citing personal reasons. His act of leaving his post immediately thereafter confirmed his intent to sever employment. Consequently, SKI’s subsequent termination letter was merely a formal acceptance of a fait accompli and did not constitute illegal dismissal.
Regarding reimbursement, the Court applied the principle of solutio indebiti under Article 2154 of the Civil Code. The advances provided to Gilles, particularly the $5,000 subsistence allowance, were intended to defray his living expenses for the initial 60-day period of his assignment in India. By resigning and leaving just over three months into his two-year contract, he failed to complete the period for which the allowance was advanced. Since there was no more duty station to justify the expense, his retention of the full amount constituted undue enrichment. Thus, he was obligated to return the unearned portion, as correctly computed by the labor tribunals. His claims of financial difficulties and work-related grievances were deemed unsubstantiated and did not negate the voluntary nature of his resignation or his obligation to return the undue payment.