GR 175209; (January, 2013) (Digest)
G.R. No. 175209 ; January 16, 2013
ROLANDO L. CERVANTES, Petitioner, vs. PAL MARITIME CORPORATION and/or WESTERN SHIPPING AGENCIES, PTE., LTD., Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Rolando Cervantes was hired as Master of M/V Themistocles for a 10-month contract. On July 31, 1995, the vessel owner sent a telex enumerating complaints about his performance, including poor communication and disorganized procedures. Petitioner responded the next day, defending himself and alleging ill-motive from the inspectors. On August 2, 1995, petitioner sent another telex describing an “unbearable situation” on board and stated: “BETTER ARRANGE MY RELIEVER… UPON ARR NEXT USA LOADING PORT FOR THEIR SATISFACTION.”
In response, on September 20, 1995, respondent Western Shipping informed petitioner that the owners decided to relieve him upon passing the Panama Canal, adding this “PRE-MATURED ENDING OF CONTRACT IS MUTUALLY AGREED.” Petitioner replied, “HV NO CHOICE BUT TO ACCEPT YR DECISION.” He was subsequently repatriated. He later filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, which the Labor Arbiter granted, finding involuntary repatriation. The NLRC reversed, finding voluntary resignation, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
ISSUE
Whether petitioner was illegally dismissed or voluntarily resigned from his employment.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition, ruling that petitioner voluntarily resigned. The legal logic centers on the principle that resignation is a voluntary act; the employee’s intent is ascertained from his words and deeds. The Court examined the sequence of communications. Petitioner’s August 2 telex, requesting a reliever for himself and another officer for the owners’ “SATISFACTION,” was an unequivocal act of resignation. It was a proactive offer to be relieved, not a reaction to a termination notice.
The subsequent September 20 letter from the company, which referenced a “mutually agreed” pre-termination, and petitioner’s reply of having “NO CHOICE BUT TO ACCEPT,” were merely confirmatory of his prior voluntary act. His reply indicated acquiescence to the logistical arrangements for his relief, not acceptance of a dismissal. The employer’s act of providing a reliever was a consequence of petitioner’s own initiative. Therefore, there was no dismissal but a voluntary severance initiated by the employee. The burden of proving illegal dismissal rests on the employee, and petitioner failed to discharge this burden, as the evidence clearly showed his intent to resign.