Resignation and abandonment are not illegal dismissals

There are many Filipino employees, and I bewail this practice, who tender their resignation or who just walk away and never return to their work, despite repeated orders by the management. And then, when they realize that they are not entitled under the law to any separation pay, they file cases of illegal dismissal. The NLRC should dismiss this capricious suit for total lack of basis. How can there be illegal dismissal, when there was even no dismissal at all? They left their work voluntarily. Of course, it is a different story if there was a valid case of constructive dismissal.

In the case of Efren Santos versus King Chef (GR 211073, November 25, 2020), the Supreme Court dismissed the case of illegal dismissal because it was the employee who failed to report for work. In Ringo Dayowan Transport versus Dionisio Guarino (GR 226409, November 10, 2020), the jeepney driver voluntarily resigned. He returned the jeepney and the keys to the owner and his acts were confirmed by his explicit declaration that from that time on, he would stop driving for the operator. That was an explicit act of resignation, which was immediately accepted by the owner/operator. Thus, there was no unilateral act of termination. On the contrary, there was a mutual and bilateral agreement to end their employer-employee relationship.

In 3M Philippines versus Lauro Yuseco (GR 248941, November 9, 2020), there was a valid redundancy program. At first, it was unilateral when management offered Yuseco an early retirement package of P5.2 million. It became bilateral when Yuseco asked for a bigger amount. The company added P1.8 million longevity pay, and P80,000 added separation pay, plus two years extension of HMO executive package health maintenance coverage for free, and a two-year life and accident insurance coverage for executives. He rejected the offer and filed an illegal dismissal case. The Supreme Court decided in favor of the management. There was no illegal dismissal. That was just a difference in monetary benefits, and the court found the company offer fair, just and legal. Yuseco is a very intelligent and highly-educated top corporate official. And he got more than P7 million here plus, plus.

In Mark Semillano versus Valdez Security (GR 239396, June 23, 2020), the Supreme Court dismissed the illegal dismissal case filed by a security guard who refused to transfer from one assignment to another. He was assigned in Laguna to guard a religious house run by Catholic sisters, who asked that the guard be relieved for filing a baseless suit against the religious congregation. The agency acted immediately by instructing the guard to transfer to another assignment. The guard refused and filed a case of illegal dismissal. The High Court dismissed the case. Guards have the duty to obey lawful instructions by their employers. Management has the prerogative to transfer employees, and there is no showing that the transfer was unjust, capricious, much less tantamount to constructive dismissal.

In the case of Arvin Pascual versus Sitel (GR 240484, March 9, 2020), The Supreme Court also dismissed a case of illegal dismissal filed by a newly-promoted supervisor who tendered his resignation after having been suspended for some offenses. He incurred a series of absences after which his attention was called. He was ordered to explain but he just tendered his written resignation. Later, he filed a complaint alleging that his resignation was not voluntary but an ill-considered emotional response to what he considered unfair and unjust treatment he got from his superiors. His allegations were rejected by the Supreme Court, which noted that the conduct of the employee before, during and after the resignation all belie his allegations of constructive dismissal.

In JS Unitrade versus Ruperto Samson (GR 200405, February 26, 2020), the Supreme Court again dismissed a case of illegal dismissal for the same reason that there was no constructive dismissal when a sales manager was transferred to an office post with no diminution in salary. The trend is therefore irreversible. Rushed filing of cases even if there was no basis at all are detected by the highest court of the land. Workers may get favorable judgments from the Arbiter, NLRC, and the Court of Appeals but the highest court of the land knows better. Justice is not only for workers. Employers have rights too.