G.R. No. 243139 , April 03, 2024
DOMINGO NALDO, JR., ROGELIO BENITEZ, ISIDRO ALFONSO, JR., RONALDO LEDDA, BERNARDO FABULARE, ARMANDO DE LUNA, AND NELSON VILLACENTINO, PETITIONERS, VS. CORPORATE PROTECTION SERVICES, PHILS., INC. AND/OR BUDDY ROBRIGADO AND BENJAMIN SESGUNDO, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioners were security guards employed by respondent Corporate Protection Services, Phils., Inc. (CORPS). They filed a Request for Assistance with the DOLE-NCMB via the SEnA, citing monetary claims for underpayment, nonpayment of overtime, holiday pay, rest day premium, service incentive leave, 13th month pay, ECOLA, and unauthorized deductions for a trust fund and cash bond. During conciliation-mediation on March 3, 2015, CORPS offered checks covering only the trust fund and cash bond refunds, which petitioners refused, demanding full payment. In a subsequent conference on March 10, 2015, CORPS’s representative, Benjamin Sesgundo, asked petitioners to submit signed resignation letters, assuring them that new checks covering all their money claims would be distributed. Relying on this assurance, petitioners submitted resignation letters and signed antedated quitclaims. Upon receipt, they discovered the checks were the same ones from March 3, covering only the trust fund and cash bond. CORPS convinced them to accept these, promising that checks for other claims would follow after validation. Petitioners attempted to report for work the next day but were prevented by supervisors, as they had “resigned.” By end-March 2015, CORPS had not paid the promised claims and still barred petitioners from work. Petitioners filed complaints for monetary claims and constructive illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaints, upholding the resignation and quitclaims. The NLRC reversed, finding petitioners had no intention to resign and were not illegally dismissed, but remanded the case for determination of money claims, holding the quitclaims invalid. Both parties filed Motions for Reconsideration, which were denied. The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC’s rulings. Petitioners elevated the case via a Petition for Review on Certiorari.

ISSUE

1. Whether petitioners were illegally dismissed.
2. Whether the quitclaims and resignation letters are valid.
3. Whether petitioners are entitled to their monetary claims.

RULING

1. Yes, petitioners were illegally dismissed. The Supreme Court found that petitioners were constructively dismissed. Constructive dismissal exists when an act of clear discrimination, insensibility, or disdain by the employer renders continued employment intolerable, forcing the employee to resign. Here, petitioners were coerced into submitting resignation letters under the false promise of full payment of their money claims. When they attempted to return to work, they were barred. CORPS’s act of requiring resignations as a precondition for receiving what was lawfully due them, coupled with preventing their return to work, constituted constructive dismissal. The NLRC and CA erred in finding no dismissal; the circumstances clearly showed CORPS’s intent to sever the employment relationship under coercive conditions.
2. No, the quitclaims and resignation letters are not valid. The quitclaims are void for being contrary to law, public policy, and morals. They were executed under the following vitiating circumstances: (a) petitioners were induced to sign based on the false assurance that they would receive full payment of all claims, which did not happen; (b) the consideration (payment of trust fund and cash bond only) was grossly unconscionable compared to the actual money claims owed; and (c) the quitclaims were antedated, indicating bad faith. Resignation requires a voluntary and intentional act. Petitioners’ submission of resignation letters was not voluntary but was a direct result of CORPS’s deceitful promise of full payment, making the resignations ineffective.
3. Yes, petitioners are entitled to their monetary claims. As illegally dismissed employees, petitioners are entitled to full backwages, inclusive of allowances and other benefits, from the time of dismissal until finality of this decision. They are also entitled to separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, as the antagonism generated by the litigation makes reinstatement impracticable. The monetary claims for overtime pay, holiday pay, rest day premium, service incentive leave pay, 13th month pay, and ECOLA, as well as refund for the unauthorized trust fund and cash bond deductions, are granted. These awards are subject to the three-year prescriptive period for filing money claims. The case is remanded to the Labor Arbiter for the precise computation of all awarded amounts. Attorney’s fees are also awarded equivalent to ten percent of the total monetary award.