G.R. No. 234575, July 07, 2021
RENATO C. TACIS AND DIONICIO LAMIS III, PETITIONERS, VS. SHIELDS SECURITY SERVICES, INC., TERESITA SOLIMAN, PRESIDENT AND DIONEFEL MORANTE, GENERAL MANAGER, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioners Renato C. Tacis and Dionicio Lamis III were security guards employed by respondent Shields Security Services, Inc. and assigned to Texas Instruments, Inc. in Baguio City. In November 2013, the company deployed new security guards and instructed petitioners to train them. On November 29, 2013, respondent General Manager Dionefel Morante informed petitioners they were being relieved and terminated from service, allegedly per the client’s request, and gave them checks representing “retirement pay.” Petitioners objected, asserting no valid ground for dismissal. To appease them, Morante promised their transfer to a sister company, Soliman Security Services, effective January to February 2014, and had them fill out application forms. Convinced, petitioners submitted resignation letters and quitclaims as prerequisites to receive cash benefits like separation pay. However, in January 2014, Morante informed them no vacancy existed at Soliman Security. Petitioners then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, with monetary claims, before the NLRC. Respondents contended petitioners voluntarily resigned, as evidenced by their handwritten resignation letters, acceptance by the company, payment of separation benefits, execution of quitclaims, and processing of exit documents. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of petitioners, finding constructive dismissal. The NLRC reversed, finding the resignation voluntary and the quitclaim valid. The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC decision.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the NLRC decision that petitioners were not illegally dismissed and are not entitled to their monetary claims.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the assailed Court of Appeals Decision and Resolution. The Court held that the question of whether petitioners were constructively dismissed is factual, and a petition for review under Rule 45 covers only questions of law. Petitioners failed to prove that their resignation was involuntary or that their consent to the quitclaim was vitiated by fraud or intimidation. Their claim of being deceived into resigning based on a false promise of transfer was not substantiated by evidence other than their own affidavits. The resignation letters expressed gratitude, and they processed resignation documents and received benefits without contest. The quitclaim was deemed valid for lack of proof of force or intimidation. Consequently, petitioners’ complaint for illegal dismissal and monetary claims was dismissed for lack of merit.