GR 153290; (September 2007) (Digest)
G.R. No. 153290; September 5, 2007
BMG RECORDS (PHILS.), INC. and JOSE YAP, JR., petitioners, vs. AIDA C. APARECIO and NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner BMG Records hired respondent Aida Aparecio as a promo girl in 1990. In April 1998, Aparecio filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and monetary claims. She alleged that before her termination, BMG asked her to resign with a promise to pay all her benefits, including separation pay. Lured by this promise, she executed a resignation letter. However, BMG later reneged, claiming she had accountability for cash shortages and offered only a reduced amount after deductions.
BMG presented a contrary version, asserting that Aparecio and two co-workers voluntarily expressed their intent to resign and requested financial assistance. The company, as a policy, does not grant such assistance for resignations but made a humanitarian exception conditional upon securing clearances. Upon inventory, shortages were discovered. Aparecio’s co-workers accepted their computed dues minus deductions and signed quitclaims. Aparecio received her final pay but refused to sign the quitclaim, protesting the deduction from her financial assistance.
ISSUE
Whether or not Aparecio was illegally dismissed, rendering her resignation involuntary due to vitiated consent.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that Aparecio was not illegally dismissed; her resignation was voluntary. The Labor Arbiter’s decision was reinstated. The Court emphasized that for a resignation to be considered involuntary due to force, intimidation, or undue influence, the employer must have employed such means that overpowered the employee’s mind, subverting her freedom of choice. Mere persuasion or advice does not constitute vitiation of consent.
The Court found no evidence of such vitiating circumstances. Aparecio’s claim of being “lured” or “induced” by a promise of benefits was insufficient to prove coercion. The promise of financial assistance, even if made, was a mere inducement and not an unlawful pressure that deprived her of will. Her act of filing a complaint after resigning does not automatically invalidate the resignation. The resignation letter itself showed no signs of duress. The situation reflected an error in judgment by the employee, not illegal acts by the employer. Therefore, the severance of employment was due to a valid resignation.