GR 166507; (September, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 166507 September 27, 2006
AMKOR TECHNOLOGY PHILIPPINES, INC., ANTHONY MICHAEL PETRUCCI and ROSEMARIE S. KATALBAS, petitioners, vs. NORY A. JUANGCO, respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Nory A. Juangco was an Executive Director at petitioner Amkor Technology Philippines, Inc. Following a management change, she was informed during an emergency meeting on November 15, 2001, of a staff reorganization and that her services were terminated immediately. Petitioners directed her to sign a document outlining conditions for her alleged voluntary retirement, including staggered separation pay and a forfeiture clause for violating company rules. After receiving her benefits, she was made to sign a Release and Quitclaim on November 21, 2001. Petitioners contended that due to an economic slowdown, they implemented a retrenchment program and that respondent voluntarily submitted herself for retrenchment and tendered a resignation letter. They asserted that her receipt of substantial separation benefits and execution of the quitclaim validated the legality of her separation.
ISSUE
Whether or not respondent Nory A. Juangco was illegally dismissed.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court ruled that Juangco was illegally dismissed. The Court affirmed the findings of the Court of Appeals that the retirement notice and quitclaim were contracts of adhesion, prepared unilaterally by the employer. Any ambiguity or question regarding the voluntariness of their execution is resolved against the drafter. Juangco’s act of filing an illegal dismissal complaint immediately negated the claim of voluntary retirement, demonstrating her intent not to relinquish employment. The Court emphasized that an employee’s acceptance of separation benefits does not estop them from contesting the legality of dismissal; otherwise, coerced resignations could not be challenged. Since reinstatement was deemed impracticable, she was entitled to separation pay and full backwages, with the amount already received deductible from the total award. However, the Court deleted the awards for moral and exemplary damages due to insufficient proof. The petition was denied.