GR 159371; (July, 2013) (Digest)
G.R. No. 159371; July 29, 2013
D.M. CONSUNJI CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. ROGELIO P. BELLO, Respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Rogelio P. Bello filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against petitioner D.M. Consunji Corporation (DMCI). Bello claimed he was employed as a mason from February 1990 until October 1997. After a medical leave for pulmonary tuberculosis, he reported back to work but was allegedly refused reinstatement and handed a termination paper citing “RSD” as the cause, which was not explained to him. He asserted he was not given prior notice or separation pay.
DMCI contended that Bello was a project employee and that his last project contract was set to expire. Crucially, DMCI asserted that Bello had voluntarily resigned on October 4, 1997, for health reasons, submitting a resignation letter to this effect. The Executive Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Bello, declaring his dismissal illegal. The NLRC reversed this decision, accepting DMCI’s defense of voluntary resignation and Bello’s status as a project employee.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether respondent Bello was illegally dismissed or whether he voluntarily resigned from his employment.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Bello, affirming the Court of Appeals’ decision that he was illegally dismissed. The Court emphasized that in illegal dismissal cases where the employer interposes the defense of voluntary resignation, the burden of proof rests squarely on the employer to establish that the resignation was voluntary. This evidence must be clear, positive, and convincing; the employer cannot rely on the weakness of the employee’s evidence.
The Court found DMCI’s evidence insufficient to meet this stringent standard. Doubts were cast on the genuineness and voluntariness of the submitted resignation letter. The Court noted discrepancies, including the fact that Bello, who was allegedly resigning due to debilitating illness, subsequently sought medical treatment and was declared fit to work. This sequence raised serious questions about his true intent to resign. Furthermore, the Court found that Bello’s actions—specifically, filing the complaint and seeking reinstatement—were inconsistent with a voluntary decision to sever employment. Given these circumstances, any doubt must be resolved in favor of the employee, in accordance with the constitutional policy of affording full protection to labor. Consequently, DMCI failed to discharge its burden of proof, making the dismissal illegal.