GR 158922; (May, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 158922 ; May 28, 2004
FERNANDO GO, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and MOLDEX PRODUCTS, INC., respondents.
FACTS
Fernando Go was employed by Moldex Products, Inc. in 1986, eventually rising to Senior Sales Manager. In 1998, Moldex investigated alleged anomalies involving the disbursement of funds to government officials by sales personnel under Go’s division. Moldex claimed that Go, feeling guilty for ineffective supervision, voluntarily submitted a letter of resignation dated October 12, 1998, effective November 16, 1998. Go went on leave during this period and worked for the release of his clearance and payment of his 13th month and leave pay benefits.
Go contested this, alleging constructive dismissal. He claimed he was not investigated but was advised his services were terminated due to command responsibility. He was promised separation pay and benefits, and a distributorship agreement, in exchange for submitting a courtesy resignation, after which his responsibilities were stripped. He filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter and the NLRC ruled in his favor, declaring the dismissal illegal and awarding backwages and separation pay.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the NLRC and ruling that Go was not constructively dismissed but voluntarily resigned.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied Go’s petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The Court emphasized that in a Rule 45 petition, it reviews only questions of law, not factual findings. The appellate court’s conclusion that Go voluntarily resigned was based on substantial evidence and thus binding. The Court found no constructive dismissal, which requires a clear case of coercion or duress amounting to forced resignation.
The evidence showed Go’s resignation was voluntary. He himself submitted the resignation letter. His subsequent actions—going on leave, processing his clearance, and following up on monetary benefits—were consistent with a voluntary severance from employment, not actions of a coerced employee. The promise of a distributorship and benefits did not equate to coercion but could be part of a separation arrangement. Since Go failed to prove his resignation was involuntary, his claim of constructive dismissal must fail. He was only entitled to benefits already paid. The complaint was properly dismissed.