GR 223163; (December, 2020) (Digest)
G.R. No. 223163 , December 02, 2020
Gil Sambu Jarabelo, Petitioner, vs. Household Goods Patrons, Inc. and Susan Dulalia, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Gil Sambu Jarabelo was employed as a booking salesman by respondent Household Goods Patrons, Inc. From May 2012 to August 2013, he was the subject of several disciplinary proceedings for issues including unaccounted amounts, low sales output, unremitted collections, and a “Poor Performance” rating. The pivotal dispute arose from conflicting accounts of a meeting on August 29, 2013. Jarabelo alleged that respondent Susan Dulalia ordered him to resign, accusing him of contributing to the company’s downfall, and that he was subsequently presented with a final pay computation. He filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. Respondents countered that Dulalia merely confronted Jarabelo about his shortages and poor performance, informed him that such acts constituted theft—a valid ground for termination—but offered him the option to resign to avoid a criminal charge and the stigma of dismissal. They asserted that Jarabelo voluntarily never returned to work after this conversation.
ISSUE
The core issue was whether Jarabelo was illegally dismissed or if he voluntarily abandoned his employment after being given an option to resign.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the findings of the Court of Appeals and the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) with modification regarding separation pay. The legal logic centered on the burden of proof in dismissal cases and the evaluation of evidence. In illegal dismissal cases, the employee bears the initial burden to prove the fact of dismissal by substantial evidence. The Court found that Jarabelo failed to discharge this burden. His allegations of a forced resignation were uncorroborated and constituted bare assertions. In contrast, the respondents’ version—that Jarabelo was given a choice to resign in lieu of a dismissal for cause—was more credible and consistent with the documented record of his performance issues.
The Court ruled that offering an employee the option to resign, when a valid ground for termination exists, is a valid exercise of management prerogative and does not constitute illegal dismissal. Since Jarabelo failed to substantiate his claim of dismissal, the NLRC correctly deleted the awards for backwages and separation pay in its original decision. However, in the interest of justice and considering the employer’s initial offer of separation pay and the protracted litigation, the Supreme Court modified the ruling to award separation pay equivalent to one month’s salary for every year of service, computed until September 1, 2013. The Court found no reason to disturb the NLRC and CA’s factual findings, supported by substantial evidence, deleting the claims for unpaid salary and service incentive leave pay.