Carolina's Lace Shoppe, Lourdes Ragas and Claudine Mangasing, V Gloria Maquilan Et Al

 

Carolina's Lace Shoppe, Lourdes Ragas and Claudine Mangasing, v Gloria Maquilan et al G.R. No. 219419 April 10, 2019 Secod Division (Reyes, J:) Doctrine: The act of the employee before and aer the alleged resignaon must be considered to determine whether in fact, he or she intended to relinquish such employment. FACTS: Gloria Maquilan was employed by Carolina’s Lace Shoppe (CLS) as sales clerk. In April 2008, the FACTS: Gloria DOLE inspected CLS. Upon inspecon, one of the laer’s employees, Sanago A. Espultero, told the labor inspector that he was receiving a daily wage of P250. Thereaer, Espultero was dismissed from the service. One month thereaer, Gloria was likewise dismissed for no reason given. Like Espultero, she was made to sign a quitclaim in order to claim her separaon pay amounng to P15,000 despite her three years in service. The same fate happened to Joy, daughter of Gloria, who was dismissed from the service and was forced to sign a quitclaim as she received P4,000.00 as "separaon pay." Gloria, Joy, Espultero, and Eminda B. Tagalo (Tagalo) were constrained to le a case for illegal dismissal with money claims and damages against CLS, Mangasing and sole proprietor Lourdes Ragas (Ragas). For their part, respondents claimed that Gloria, Joy and Espultero were not illegally dismissed as they voluntarily resigned, evidenced by their resignaon leers. The Labor Arbiter found Gloria and Joy to have been illegally dismissed as they were forced to resign from their respecve employments. NLRC reversed the same, however, the t he CA granted the peon and reinstated the ruling of the Labor Arbiter. In disposing so, the CA held that the tenor of the resignaon leers, the quitclaims executed by Gloria and Joy, and their subsequent acts belied their clear intents to sever from their respecve employments. ISSUES: 1. Whether or not the peoners were illegally dismissed. YES ISSUES: 2. Whether or not the quitclaims they executed are in compliance with the requirements provided by law. NO HELD: 1. YES. Pung YES. Pung forth their claim that Gloria indeed voluntarily resigned, respondents insist that the former oered no evidence which depicted that force or fraud was employed when the resignaon leer with quitclaim was executed. Hence, the same was accomplished voluntarily. On this note, this Court nds it proper to delve into the voluntariness of Gloria's resignaon. Cing Fortuny Garments/Johnny Co v. Castro , the case of Torreda v. Investment and Capital Corporaon of the Philippines  discusses how an employee's act of severing from employment may be measured, to wit:

 xxx. The act of the employee before before and aer the alleged re resignaon signaon must be considered considered to determine whether in fact, he or she intended to relinquish such employment. If the employer introduces evidence purportedly executed by an employee as proof of voluntary resignaon and

 

the employee specically denies the authencity and due execuon of said document, the employer is burdened to prove the due execuon and genuineness of such document. Verily, the acts preceding and subsequent to the employee's resignaon must be taken into consideraon. Here, prior to her resignaon, there was no indicaon that Gloria intended to relinquish her employment. Such alleged resignaon actually took place aer the DOLE conducted an inspecon, which yielded to an informaon that CLS was not giving its employees their due wages. A month aer such inspecon, like the employee who reported such labor standards violaon, Gloria was separated from employment by virtue of a resignaon leer. In this regard, there was no clear intenon on the part of Gloria to relinquish her employment. As to her acts aer her resignaon, Gloria led a complaint for illegal dismissal and money claims 12 days thereaer. On this note, this Court reiterates that such act of ling said complaint is dicult to reconcile with voluntary resignaon. 2. NO. In NO. In the case of Mobile Protecve & Detecve Agency , this Court ruled that resignaon leers which are in the nature of a quitclaim, lopsidedly worded to free the employer e mployer from liabilies reveal the absence of voluntariness. Moreover, the quitclaim contained in the resignaon leer does not contain spulaons required for its ecacy. In the case of Flight Aendants and Stewards Associaon of the Philippines (FASAP) v. Philippine Airlines, Inc ., this Court reiterated the ruling in EDI-Stauilders Internaonal, Inc. v. Naonal N aonal Labor Relaons Commission  which laid down the basic contents of a valid and eecve quitclaim, to wit:

In order to prevent disputes on the validity and enforceability of quitclaims and waivers of employees under Philippine laws, said agreements should contain the following:  as full and nal compromise selement;  A fxed amount  as The benefts o the employees i possible with the corresponding amounts , which the employees are giving up in consideraon of the xed compromise amount;  A statement that the employer  has  has clearly explained to the employee in English, Filipino, or in the dialect known to the employees - that by signing the waiver or quitclaim, they are forfeing or relinquishing their right to receive the benets which are due them under the law; and 

 , and had fully  A statement that the employees signed and executed the document voluntarily  understood the contents of the document and that their consent was freely given without any threat, violence, duress, inmidaon, or undue inuence exerted on their person. Admiedly, the quitclaim does not indicate that Gloria received the amount of P15,000.00 as full and nal selement. Similarly, there was nothing which indicates that said amount constutes said full and nal selement. The quitclaim was also couched in general terms and the tenor of the same does not show that Gloria understood the importance of the same considering that on the same day that she resigned, she immediately relieved respondents from their liabilies. There was also no indicaon that Gloria intends to give up her claimed benets in consideraon of a xed compromise amount. It must be

 

emphasized that Gloria was constrained to receive the amount of P15,000.00 as she was eight months pregnant at that me and lives with no other means aside from her employment with CLS. As to Joy, there was no indicaon that she intended to voluntarily resign. There was no execuon of a resignaon leer, but merely a quitclaim, which likewise does not contain the above-menoned spulaons as the same was a standard clearance and quitclaim form which Joy merely lled out. The manner by which Joy's name and the eecvity date of her cessaon from employment were wrien, bore the same style and strokes with the entries pertaining to the computaon of the amount paid to her; such entries were obviously wrien by one of CLS's employees. It is apparent, therefore, that the entries in the whole document were wrien by the same person and Joy was merely asked to sign the same. In addion, the day aer she signed the alleged quitclaim, she immediately led a complaint for illegal dismissal.