G.R. No. 187232 ; April 17, 2013
ZENAIDA D. MENDOZA, Petitioner, vs. HMS CREDIT CORPORATION and/or FELIPE R. DIEGO, MA. LUISA B. DIEGO, HONDA MOTOR SPORTS CORPORATION and/or FELIPE R. DIEGO, MA. LUISA B. DIEGO, BETA MOTOR TRADING INCORPORATED and/or FELIPE DIEGO, MA. LUISA B. DIEGO, JIANSHE CYCLE WORLD IN CORPORATED and/or JOSE B. DIEGO, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Zenaida D. Mendoza was the Chief Accountant of respondent HMS Credit Corporation beginning August 1, 1999, and simultaneously serviced three other respondent companies within the Honda Motor Sports Group. She claims that on April 11, 2002, after submitting audited financial statements, she was summoned by respondent Felipe R. Diego, advised of her termination, and told to leave the premises without collecting her belongings. She was subsequently barred from entering the office building by security guards acting on respondents’ instructions. Respondents counter that Mendoza misrepresented her CPA qualification, failed to disclose knowledge of the resignation and transfer of two company officers to a competitor, and had a hand in pirating them. They allege that on April 12, 2002, they confronted her, after which she stated that if trust was lost, they should part ways. They asked her to propose separation benefits and handed her ₱30,000 as payment for an external auditor before she left. Mendoza filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and monetary claims. The Labor Arbiter ruled in her favor, declaring illegal dismissal and awarding separation pay, backwages, damages, and attorney’s fees. Respondents appealed to the NLRC, initially posting a reduced bond citing business losses. The NLRC required an additional bond, which respondents complied with. The NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter, finding no dismissal but a compromise agreement for voluntary resignation with separation pay, though it also ruled Mendoza’s actions constituted a just cause for termination (breach of trust). The NLRC ordered payment of separation pay. The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC’s decision, ruling the parties had entered into a compromise agreement for voluntary resignation with separation benefits, and thus there was no dismissal.

ISSUE

1. Whether the appeal of respondents to the NLRC was timely filed.
2. Whether petitioner Mendoza was illegally dismissed.

RULING

1. On the Timely Filing of the Appeal: The Supreme Court, referencing Pasig Cylinder v. Rollo, held that the requirement to post a bond equivalent to the monetary award may be liberally interpreted. Respondents’ posting of a reduced bond initially, followed by compliance with the NLRC’s order to post the additional required amount after their motion for reduction was denied, constituted substantial compliance with Article 223 of the Labor Code. The appeal was therefore perfected on time.
2. On Illegal Dismissal: The Supreme Court ruled that Mendoza was NOT illegally dismissed. The Court agreed with the findings of the NLRC and the CA that the circumstances indicated the parties had reached a compromise agreement whereby Mendoza would voluntarily resign in exchange for separation benefits. This was evidenced by the amicable end to the April 11 meeting, the entrustment of ₱30,000 to Mendoza for the external auditor, and her treating her subsequent absence as a pre-approved leave. The Court found that respondents’ subsequent act of barring her from the premises was an attempt to renege on their commitment to pay separation benefits. Since the arrangement for voluntary resignation with pay was a contract freely entered into, it must be performed in good faith. The Court emphasized that loss of trust and confidence could have been a valid ground for dismissal, but respondents opted for a compromise instead. Consequently, there being no dismissal, the issue of procedural due process in termination was irrelevant. The NLRC’s award of separation pay based on the compromise agreement was sustained.