G.R. No. 69018 ; January 29, 1990
ERNESTO S. DIZON, JR., petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, SECOND DIVISION, HON. LABOR ARBITER VIRGINIA G. SON, AGUINALDO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, JOSE G. RICAFORT, CONRADO T. CALALANG, EDGAR D. DE CASTRO and BENJAMIN V. ARITAO, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Ernesto S. Dizon, Jr., an Assistant to the President with seventeen years of service at Aguinaldo Development Corporation (ADECOR), ceased employment on October 31, 1981. He filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and monetary claims. Dizon alleged that on October 29, 1981, after preparing a computation of benefits for a resigning co-employee, he was summoned by respondent President Jose Ricafort. He claimed Ricafort, in the presence of others, ordered him to tender a written resignation, promising payment of all entitlements. Dizon submitted a resignation letter effective October 31, 1981, later amending it upon Ricafort’s instruction. Ricafort accepted the resignation but withheld clearance pending an investigation into Dizon’s field activities.
On November 4, 1981, Dizon withdrew his resignation, stating he was willing to face any investigation, as his initial submission was premised on the belief he had no accountability. Management, through a subsequent memorandum, rejected the withdrawal, affirming his separation. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the illegal dismissal complaint, finding the resignation voluntary, but awarded Dizon payment for unused vacation and sick leaves. Both parties appealed to the NLRC.

ISSUE

The primary issues were: (1) Whether Dizon was illegally dismissed or voluntarily resigned; and (2) Whether the NLRC correctly modified the Labor Arbiter’s award for unused leave credits.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the NLRC’s finding that Dizon was not illegally dismissed but modified the award on leave credits. On the dismissal issue, the Court upheld the factual conclusions of the labor tribunals. Dizon’s claim of being forced to resign was inconsistent with his simultaneous allegation that he was induced by promises of monetary entitlements. His act of submitting a resignation letter, and only attempting to withdraw it days later after learning of a pending investigation, demonstrated voluntariness. The Court found no substantial evidence of coercion or duress. His monetary claims for 13th-month pay and salary differentials were also denied for lack of proof and because they were only belatedly asserted upon filing the dismissal case.
However, the Court reversed the NLRC’s modification limiting the cash conversion of unused vacation and sick leaves to 1981 only. Private respondents’ appeal to the NLRC was filed 14 calendar days after receiving the Labor Arbiter’s decision, exceeding the mandatory 10-calendar-day period under Article 223 of the Labor Code. Since the appeal was filed out of time, the Labor Arbiter’s decision on this specific award became final and executory as to the respondents. The NLRC had no jurisdiction to modify it. The entrenched rule is that a party who does not perfect a timely appeal cannot obtain a modification of the judgment in their favor. Consequently, the original award by the Labor Arbiter for the payment of unused leave credits was reinstated.