Vergara v. CDM Security Agency, Inc.
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Oliver Vergara (Vergara), a security guard employed by CDM Security Agency, Inc. (CDM), was assigned to a BPI Family Savings Bank branch. While on duty, Vergara allegedly had an argument with a co-employee, Hipolito Fernandez, and pointed a shotgun at him. The following day, CDM issued a Memorandum of Disciplinary Action to Vergara, relieving him of his post and requiring him to report to the agency's office. Vergara allegedly refused to receive the memorandum and subsequently filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, non-remittance of SSS contributions and loan payments, and money claims. Procedural History: During a preliminary conference, the parties agreed to an amicable settlement. Vergara received P11,000.00 as full settlement and was furnished copies of his SSS loan contributions and payments. He signed a Quitclaim and Release with Motion to Dismiss. However, during a subsequent conference, Vergara manifested that respondents failed to comply with some terms, specifically returning his ATM card and remitting loan payments to SSS. The respondents, in turn, maintained that Vergara was merely relieved, not terminated, and presented proof of remittance and an affidavit from Fernandez stating the ATM card was with him. The Labor Arbiter (LA) ruled that Vergara was illegally dismissed and ordered reinstatement with backwages and attorney's fees. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the LA, dismissing the complaint for lack of merit, which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA). The Petition: Vergara filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court, seeking to reverse the CA's decision affirming the NLRC's ruling, primarily questioning the validity of the quitclaim and the finding that he was not illegally dismissed.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in affirming that Vergara was not illegally dismissed from employment. Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred when it upheld the validity of the quitclaim/waiver.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Decision dated March 31, 2016, and Resolution dated July 7, 2016, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 141223 are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the claim of illegal dismissal: The Court affirmed the CA's findings that Vergara was not dismissed from employment. Jurisprudence emphasizes that the fact of dismissal must be established by positive and overt acts of an employer indicating the intention to dismiss. Vergara failed to substantiate his allegation of verbal dismissal. The Memorandum relieving him from his post was a disciplinary action for alleged violation of the Code of Ethics and grave threat, served the day after the incident. However, the Court noted that no prior investigation was conducted before the findings of violation were made. Despite this procedural lapse in the disciplinary action, the Court held that in view of the Quitclaim and Release executed by Vergara, the respondents could not be held liable for relieving him from his post. Furthermore, even in the absence of the quitclaim, there was no evidence to suggest he was being suspended or dismissed, as recalling him from duty could also be a reassignment. On the validity of the Quitclaim and Release: The Court affirmed the CA's finding that the Quitclaim and Release signed by Vergara is valid and binding. The Court reiterated the rule that where a party has voluntarily made a waiver with full understanding of its terms and consequences, and the consideration is credible and reasonable, the transaction must be recognized as valid and binding, and may not be disowned later due to a change of mind. Vergara did not dispute the authenticity or due execution of the quitclaim, which was subscribed and sworn before a Labor Arbiter. The fact that his ATM card was not returned did not render the quitclaim ineffective, as the respondents explained it was a separate matter between Vergara and Fernandez, and they had no control over it. The Court found no plausible reason for Vergara to insist on recovering the ATM card from the respondents when it appeared to be in Fernandez's possession.
Main Doctrine
A quitclaim and release, voluntarily made with a full understanding of its terms and consequences, and supported by credible and reasonable consideration, is valid and binding, and cannot be disowned later due to a change of mind. Furthermore, the fact of dismissal must be established by positive and overt acts of an employer indicating the intention to dismiss, and mere allegations of verbal termination are insufficient without substantiation.