Dayowan v. Guarino
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Dionito D. Guarino, Jr. (Dionito) was employed as a jeepney driver by Ringo B. Dayowan (Ringo) on a boundary basis, working ten to twelve hours a day, five times a week, earning approximately ₱600.00 to ₱800.00 daily. Ringo required Dionito to deposit ₱20.00 daily for his Social Security System (SSS) contribution. In March 2014, Dionito discovered that Ringo was not remitting these deposits to the SSS. Upon confronting Ringo on March 5, 2014, Ringo stated, "Kung ayaw mo ng patakaran dito, wag ka na bumiyahe." The following day, Dionito reported to work but was informed he was no longer allowed to drive and was asked to sign a resignation letter, which he refused. Ringo claimed Dionito voluntarily quit due to a disliked increase in the boundary rate. Ringo presented SSS receipts as proof of remittance and stated Dionito surrendered the jeepney and keys on March 4, 2014, refusing to sign a resignation letter but agreeing to consider his outstanding boundary and cash advances totaling ₱19,500.00 as financial assistance. Ringo filed a "Sumbong" on March 5, 2014, detailing Dionito's failure to remit the correct boundary and his refusal to resign or provide a written statement. A "Kasunduang Pag-Aayos" was signed on March 12, 2014, stating the jeepney would be driven by another driver because Dionito could not afford the increased boundary. On April 11, 2014, Dionito filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. Procedural History: The Labor Arbiter (LA) dismissed Dionito's complaint, finding that he voluntarily resigned due to his refusal to pay the increased boundary rate, supported by the "Sumbong" and "Kasunduang Pag-Aayos." The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the LA's decision, agreeing that Dionito's claim of not resigning was immaterial as he manifested an intention to relinquish his employment during the barangay proceedings due to the increased boundary. The NLRC considered Ringo's statement as offering options: comply with the policy or resign, not an outright dismissal. The Petition: The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the NLRC, finding Dionito was illegally dismissed. The CA noted Dionito reported back to work, refused to sign a resignation letter, and was compelled to submit one during barangay proceedings. It found Ringo failed to prove just or valid cause for dismissal and afford procedural due process, awarding backwages, separation pay, and moral damages due to Ringo's alleged bad faith. Ringo filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court, arguing Dionito voluntarily discontinued work due to the increased boundary and filed the complaint to avoid debt.
Issue(s)
Whether Dionito D. Guarino, Jr. voluntarily resigned from his employment. Whether Ringo B. Dayowan illegally dismissed Dionito D. Guarino, Jr.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed and set aside the Decision of the Court of Appeals and reinstated the Decision of the National Labor Relations Commission affirming the Labor Arbiter's dismissal of Dionito's complaint for illegal dismissal.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of voluntary resignation: The Court held that for an employee's resignation to be a valid defense against an illegal dismissal claim, the employer must present clear, positive, and convincing evidence of its voluntariness. In this case, Ringo successfully presented sufficient evidence, namely the "Sumbong" and the "Kasunduang Pag-Aayos," to establish that Dionito resigned. These documents, written in simple language, clearly indicated Dionito's unwillingness to comply with the increased boundary rate imposed by Ringo. The Court found Dionito's claim of not understanding the "Kasunduang Pag-Aayos" to be unbelievable, given its plain wording. Furthermore, the act of returning the jeepney and its keys, coupled with his non-payment of the adjusted boundary rate, demonstrated Dionito's choice to leave employment rather than continue under the new terms. Resignation is defined as the voluntary act of an employee, compelled by personal reasons, to relinquish their position, accompanied by the intent to do so and the manifestation of that intent. Dionito's actions clearly aligned with this definition. On the issue of illegal dismissal: The Court found no substantial evidence to prove that Dionito was dismissed or prevented from returning to work. The mere filing of an illegal dismissal complaint by an employee does not automatically prove dismissal, especially when the totality of the employee's acts, such as surrendering the employer's property, indicates the contrary. The Court emphasized that an employer's substantial evidence showing no termination should not be disregarded simply because the employee filed a complaint. Absent any overt or positive act by Ringo proving dismissal, Dionito's self-serving claim of illegal dismissal could not be sustained. The increase in the boundary rate was a valid exercise of management prerogative, and Dionito's refusal to abide by it, followed by his actions, constituted a voluntary resignation.
Main Doctrine
An employer must present clear, positive, and convincing evidence to prove that an employee's resignation was voluntary. The employee's overt acts, such as returning the employer's property and ceasing to report for work, coupled with the absence of proof of dismissal, can establish voluntary resignation.