G.R. No. 191464 & G.R. No. 191460 , January 31, 2018
Perfecto M. Pascua, Petitioner, vs. Bank Wise, Inc. and Philippine Veterans Bank, Respondents.

FACTS

Perfecto M. Pascua was employed as Executive Vice President for Marketing by Bank Wise, Inc. Following Philippine Veterans Bank’s acquisition of Bank Wise’s capital stock, Pascua was reassigned to a Special Accounts Unit with ill-defined duties. Bank Wise’s President, Roberto Buhain, and a director, Vicente Campa, informed Pascua that as part of the merger agreement, he must tender his resignation. They assured him that all his monetary claims would be paid and hinted at continued employment with Philippine Veterans Bank. Relying on these assurances, Pascua submitted a resignation letter dated February 22, 2005, which stated it was “[i]n accordance with the instructions of the previous owners of the bank.”
Subsequently, Bank Wise accepted his resignation effective March 31, 2005. However, the promised monetary benefits were not paid. Pascua then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and monetary claims against both Bank Wise and Philippine Veterans Bank. The Labor Arbiter initially dismissed the complaint, ruling the resignation was voluntary. The National Labor Relations Commission reversed this, finding constructive dismissal and holding both banks solidarily liable. The Court of Appeals affirmed the finding of constructive dismissal but absolved Philippine Veterans Bank, holding only Bank Wise liable.

ISSUE

The core issue was whether Pascua’s resignation constituted constructive dismissal and, if so, whether Philippine Veterans Bank should be held solidarily liable with Bank Wise for the resulting monetary claims.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. Pascua was constructively dismissed. Constructive dismissal exists when an employee is forced to resign due to the employer’s actions, leaving no reasonable alternative. While a clear and unconditional resignation letter typically indicates voluntariness, the circumstances surrounding Pascua’s resignation negated this. He resigned only after explicit instructions from Bank Wise’s management and upon their assurances of payment and future employment. His subsequent actions, including demands for the promised payments, demonstrated he did not intend to relinquish his employment voluntarily. The employer’s directive to resign, coupled with the failure to honor the accompanying assurances, created a situation where resignation was the only plausible option, amounting to constructive dismissal.
Regarding liability, the Supreme Court upheld the exoneration of Philippine Veterans Bank. The evidence established that the acts compelling Pascua’s resignation—the instructions and assurances—were committed solely by Bank Wise’s officers (Buhain and Campa) before Philippine Veterans Bank had assumed full management control. There was no proof that Philippine Veterans Bank directed or ratified these acts. The separate corporate personalities of the two banks were respected. Consequently, only Bank Wise, as the employer who committed the illegal act, was liable for Pascua’s backwages and separation pay. The Court emphasized that solidary liability cannot be imposed without clear evidence of shared responsibility for the dismissal.