G.R. No. 177167 ; January 17, 2013
NELSON B. GAN, Petitioner, vs. GALDERMA PHILIPPINES, INC. and ROSENDO C. VENERACION, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Nelson B. Gan was hired by respondent Galderma Philippines, Inc. as Product Manager for its Consumer Products Division in March 2001. His performance was consistently rated as “Fully Effective” and “Exceptionally effective,” resulting in significant salary and benefits increases, positive performance appraisals, and commendations from company president Rosendo C. Veneracion. In April 2002, Galderma revised Gan’s incentive scheme to include products from its Ethical Division, which he alleged made his sales targets unattainable and diminished his earnings. Gan claimed this constituted constructive dismissal, forcing him to resign. He filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.
Galderma countered that Gan voluntarily resigned, as evidenced by his resignation letter citing personal reasons and his pursuit of other business opportunities. The company asserted that the incentive scheme revision was a legitimate business decision to expand his responsibilities, which he initially accepted. The Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) ruled in favor of Galderma, finding the resignation voluntary. The Court of Appeals affirmed these rulings.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the findings that petitioner was not constructively dismissed but voluntarily resigned from his employment.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the appellate court’s decision. The legal logic rests on the burden of proof in dismissal cases and the evaluation of evidence. In cases of alleged constructive dismissal, the employee bears the burden to prove that the employer’s actions amounted to a clear act of discrimination, insensibility, or disdain, compelling resignation. The Court found Gan failed to discharge this burden. The revision of the incentive scheme, while potentially disadvantageous, was a management prerogative implemented in good faith to align with expanded duties. The company demonstrated Gan’s prior excellent performance and rewards, negating any ill motive.
Crucially, the Court gave weight to the consistent factual findings of the Labor Arbiter, NLRC, and Court of Appeals that Gan voluntarily resigned. His resignation letter, which did not mention any coercion or unfair treatment, was a clear act of relinquishment. The subsequent claim of constructive dismissal appeared to be an afterthought. The Supreme Court emphasized that it is not a trier of facts, and absent any showing that the lower tribunals overlooked relevant facts or misapplied the law, their factual findings are accorded finality. The evidence on record substantiated the conclusion that no constructive dismissal occurred.