Custodio v. Minister, Ministry of Labor and Employment
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Victor A. Custodio, Assistant General Manager for Operations of respondent First Farmers Milling and Marketing Cooperative Association, Inc. (Cooperative) for almost seventeen (17) years, submitted a letter of resignation on May 5, 1981. At the time, he held a high-ranking position with substantial compensation. The resignation stemmed from a dispute regarding the purchase of a boiler, involving accusations of kickbacks. In his resignation letter, Custodio stated he was taking a vacation and would resign irrevocably after serving the required 30-day notice and turnover period following his vacation. Procedural History: Custodio's resignation letter was deferred by the board of directors. On May 13, 1981, Custodio appeared before the board, explained his resignation, and manifested his intention to withdraw it, promising to send a letter to that effect. He then went on vacation. The board, in a meeting on May 30, 1981, discussed the resignation, with some members noting it was made under pressure and not voluntary, while others insisted it was irrevocable and that the board had no choice but to take cognizance of it. On June 3, 1981, the general manager directed Custodio to desist from assuming his functions. Custodio replied on June 5, 1981, stating he had withdrawn his resignation and was returning to work. He reported back on June 7, 1981. On June 8, 1981, the general manager notified suppliers that Custodio was no longer connected with the cooperative. On June 10, 1981, Custodio filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The MOLE regional office dismissed the complaint, which was affirmed by the Deputy Minister. Custodio appealed to the Minister, but the order was affirmed. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the petition but reconsidered and gave it due course. The Petition: The case reached the Supreme Court on the issue of whether Custodio's resignation was valid and effective, or if his withdrawal was valid, thus entitling him to reinstatement.
Issue(s)
Whether petitioner Victor A. Custodio effectively withdrew his resignation. Whether petitioner was illegally dismissed from his employment.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The Orders of the Deputy Minister are SET ASIDE. Private respondent is ORDERED to reinstate petitioner, without loss of seniority rights and with backwages for three (3) years without qualification or deduction. Should reinstatement to his former or a substantially equivalent position be no longer feasible due to the time elapsed, he shall be entitled to separation pay equivalent to one (1) month's salary for every year of service, in addition to the backwages. This decision is IMMEDIATELY EXECUTORY.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of withdrawal of resignation: The Supreme Court found that petitioner Victor A. Custodio's resignation never became effective. Despite the letter stating the resignation was "irrevocable," neither Custodio nor the private respondent treated it as such. Custodio appeared before the board of directors on May 13, 1981, and verbally manifested his intention to withdraw his resignation, which was noted in the minutes. The resignation was not to take effect immediately but after a vacation and a 30-day notice period. The withdrawal on May 13, 1981, therefore, prevented it from becoming effective. The subsequent actions of the board, particularly the discussion on May 30, 1981, attempting to reassert the irrevocability of the resignation, lent credence to Custodio's claim that influential directors conspired to oust him due to his recommendation of a boiler brand. Furthermore, Custodio's counsel's letter dated June 5, 1981, clearly communicated the withdrawal and his intention to return to work. The resolution in the June 11, 1981 meeting, stating that actions by Cuenca and Custodio were in their private capacity unless approved by the board, implied Custodio was still connected with the cooperative, contradicting the general manager's notice to suppliers that Custodio was no longer connected. The Court gave predominance to the act of the board of directors over that of the general manager. On the issue of illegal dismissal: Since the resignation was effectively withdrawn and never became effective, Custodio was still an employee of the cooperative when he was prevented from returning to work and when the general manager issued notices to suppliers. Therefore, his dismissal was illegal. The Court ordered his reinstatement with backwages and, if reinstatement is no longer feasible, separation pay.
Main Doctrine
A resignation, even if stated to be irrevocable, may be withdrawn if both the employee and the employer do not treat it as such, as evidenced by subsequent actions and resolutions of the board of directors. The withdrawal of a resignation prevents it from becoming effective.