G.R. No. 230047 , October 09, 2019
MARK ELISEUS M. VILLOLA, PETITIONER, VS. UNITED PHILIPPINE LINES, INC. AND FERNANDINO T. LISING, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioner Mark Eliseus M. Villola was employed by respondent United Philippine Lines, Inc. (UPL) as Information Technology (IT) and Communications Manager on April 1, 2010. In May 2013, UPL’s General Manager, Joey G. Consunji, informed Villola that his position might be declared redundant. They discussed Villola’s potential engagement as a consultant for a scanning project. Consunji instructed Villola to submit a written resignation letter to formalize the cessation of his employment, which Villola did not submit. Villola stopped reporting for work starting June 2013 but continued to perform part-time work as a trainer for a UPL affiliate on the company premises until July 2013. On June 27, 2013, Villola submitted a proposal for the scanning project under the name “DRD Technology Solutions,” but the project did not materialize. On October 11, 2014, UPL issued a memorandum stating Villola’s termination was effective June 1, 2013, and barring him from company premises. Villola filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and monetary claims on September 30, 2014. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the illegal dismissal complaint, finding voluntary resignation, but awarded separation pay and pro-rata 13th-month pay. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the Labor Arbiter, declaring Villola illegally dismissed and awarding backwages and separation pay. The Court of Appeals granted respondents’ Petition for Certiorari, setting aside the NLRC ruling and reinstating the Labor Arbiter’s decision with modification, deleting the award of separation pay but affirming the 13th-month pay award.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that petitioner Villola was not illegally dismissed but voluntarily resigned from his employment.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ Decision and Resolution. The Court held that the factual findings of the Court of Appeals, which substantially concurred with those of the Labor Arbiter, are accorded respect and finality. The evidence established that Villola voluntarily resigned. His failure to submit the requested resignation letter did not negate his intent to resign, as shown by his subsequent actions: he stopped reporting for work in June 2013, ceased receiving salary, performed only part-time training work for an affiliate, and submitted a business proposal for a consultancy project. His continued presence at the workplace for training did not equate to reporting for his regular duties. His delay of over a year in filing the complaint also indicated acquiescence to his separation. The Court found no illegal dismissal, as the employer did not terminate him; rather, he voluntarily severed his employment. The award of 13th-month pay by the Labor Arbiter, not refuted by respondents, was affirmed.