G.R. No. 214419 . November 17, 2021
SALVADOR DELA FUENTE, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE SM SEAFOOD PRODUCTS, AND MANUEL SARRAGA, PETITIONERS, VS. MARILYN E. GIMENEZ, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Respondent Marilyn E. Gimenez was employed as a sorter by petitioner SM Seafood Products (SSP), a sole proprietorship owned by Salvador dela Fuente and managed by Manuel Sarraga. She filed a complaint for illegal suspension, illegal dismissal, illegal deduction, underpayment, and nonpayment of various benefits. Gimenez alleged she was illegally suspended on three occasions (in 2002, December 2003, and June 2005) without notice or hearing. She claimed that in June 2005, after being suspended for two months for refusing an assignment, she was informed by co-workers that her cash advance was being required to be paid by them—a practice signifying termination. When she confronted Sarraga, she was told she was terminated because her children disapproved of her assignments. Sarraga conditioned her reinstatement on full payment of her cash advance, which she could not pay without being reinstated. Petitioners denied illegal dismissal, claiming Gimenez had been absent without leave since June 24, 2005, and presented a resignation letter and quitclaim both dated June 23, 2005, which Gimenez disowned, alleging they were procured from blank documents employees were made to sign. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Gimenez, finding illegal dismissal. The NLRC reversed, finding the resignation voluntary. The Court of Appeals reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s decision with modification, finding the dismissal illegal.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Marilyn E. Gimenez was illegally dismissed from her employment.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court ruled that Gimenez was illegally dismissed. The Court reiterated that in illegal dismissal cases where the employer raises the defense of resignation, the burden of proving its voluntariness rests on the employer with clear, positive, and convincing evidence. The petitioners failed to discharge this burden. The purported resignation letter and quitclaim were deemed suspicious as Gimenez consistently denied signing them, and petitioners’ sole witness, Sarraga, could not confirm he witnessed their signing. The circumstances indicated the documents were likely pre-signed blanks misused by the employer. Furthermore, Gimenez’s immediate filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal and her actions seeking clarification about her employment status were inconsistent with voluntary resignation. The employer’s claim of abandonment was also unsubstantiated. The Court affirmed the CA’s finding of illegal dismissal and modified the awarded monetary benefits, ordering petitioners to pay Gimenez full backwages, separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, unpaid wages, holiday pay, service incentive leave pay, and attorney’s fees, all with legal interest. The Court emphasized the constitutional policy of affording greater protection to labor, requiring that when evidence is in equipoise, the scales of justice must be tilted in favor of the employee.