Vergara v. ANZ Global Services and Operations Manila, Inc.
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner John Roger Niño S. Vergara was hired as Risk Manager by respondent ANZ Global Services and Operations Manila, Inc. on November 30, 2010. On August 5, 2016, petitioner submitted his resignation letter, with September 6, 2016, as his last day. On August 15, 2016, petitioner learned of a company restructuring that would displace workers, with severance pay. His position was affected. On September 1, 2016, he found out his Resignation Acceptance Form (RAF) had not been signed by his Line Manager, Kristine Gorospe. On September 5, 2016, petitioner emailed Roscoe Pineda, Head of Risk Services, to withdraw his resignation. Pineda replied that the resignation would take effect the next day but suggested petitioner confirm with HR if retraction was possible. On September 6, 2016, Nicola Hutton, Head of HR, emailed petitioner stating his resignation was accepted and employment ceased that day. Procedural History: Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and recovery of monetary claims, arguing his resignation was validly revoked before acceptance and that he was not issued a RAF as per company policy. He contended he should have been included in the restructuring program. Respondent claimed petitioner voluntarily resigned and his resignation was accepted prior to retraction, citing Gorospe's act of triggering the Employee Leaving Advice (ELA) in the system. The Labor Arbiter (LA) dismissed the complaint for lack of merit but awarded proportionate 13th-month pay, finding substantial evidence of voluntary resignation duly accepted via ELA. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) modified the LA decision, finding no illegal dismissal but an ineffectual resignation due to lack of acceptance before retraction. It ruled the employer-employee relationship subsisted during the restructuring announcement and ordered payment of separation pay and proportionate 13th-month pay. Respondent's motion for reconsideration was denied. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the NLRC, reinstating the LA decision, finding that respondent sufficiently established acceptance of resignation through affidavits and emails. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: Petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to annul the CA Decision and Resolution, arguing the CA erred in finding acceptance of his resignation prior to retraction.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding that there was an acceptance of petitioner's resignation prior to the retraction thereof. Whether the triggering of the Employee Leaving Advice (ELA) in the company's system constitutes acceptance of resignation. Whether the company's policy on the use of a Resignation Acceptance Form (RAF) was followed or validly dispensed with.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated January 17, 2019, and the Resolution dated October 24, 2019, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 151874 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Resolutions dated April 27, 2017, and June 23, 2017, of the National Labor Relations Commission in NLRC NCR-00-10-13078-2016/NLRC LAC No. 03-001199-17 are REINSTATED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of acceptance of resignation: The Court held that acceptance of a resignation is necessary to make it effective. In this case, no such acceptance was shown prior to the petitioner's retraction. The Court adopted the NLRC's findings that the resignation was ineffectual because it was only accepted on September 6, 2016, after the petitioner had validly withdrawn it on September 5, 2016. The employer-employee relationship subsisted at the time the company restructuring was announced, entitling the petitioner to separation pay. The Court disagreed with the CA's reliance on the affidavits of Gorospe and Hutton as proof of acceptance. The Court found their statements to be self-serving and lacking any indication of respondent's acceptance of the resignation. Gorospe's affidavit detailed conversations about Telstra's offer and an internal promotion, and her deferral of the exit in PeopleSoft, but did not confirm acceptance of the resignation. Hutton's affidavit, claiming the RAF was scrapped, was also deemed insufficient. The Court pointed to Pineda's email on September 5, 2016, suggesting petitioner speak to HR about retracting his resignation as proof that, as of that date, there was no acceptance of the resignation by the respondent. If the ELA constituted acceptance, Pineda would not have suggested exploring retraction possibilities. On the Employee Leaving Advice (ELA) as acceptance: The Court ruled that the Labor Arbiter erred in considering the triggering of the ELA as acceptance of resignation. The ELA is merely a report triggered by a Line Manager as advice that an employee is resigning, addressed to HR Operations, not to the employee. It cannot equate to legal acceptance. Furthermore, an email regarding the ELA explicitly stated that termination processing could not proceed until all required documentation was provided, indicating it was not a final acceptance. On the Resignation Acceptance Form (RAF) and company policy: The Court found it erroneous for the LA and CA to give credence to the respondents' allegation that the RAF had been scrapped. The affidavits of Gorospe and Hutton claiming this were insufficient and self-serving. This allegation was contradicted by the respondent's own documentary evidence, specifically the "Manila Hub Off-boarding Process" which explicitly states that upon acceptance of a resignation letter, the Line Manager is to accomplish the RAF. Without a memorandum or other evidence proving the RAF was done away with, the allegation remained unsubstantiated.
Main Doctrine
A resignation is effective only upon acceptance by the employer. An employee may validly retract their resignation prior to its acceptance. The triggering of an Employee Leaving Advice (ELA) in the company system does not, by itself, constitute acceptance of resignation. Company policies regarding resignation acceptance, such as the use of a Resignation Acceptance Form (RAF), must be strictly followed unless proven to have been validly rescinded or replaced.