Auza v. MOL (G.R. No. 175481; November 21, 2012)

CASE DIGEST: DIONISIO F. AUZA, JR., ADESSA F. OTARRA, and ELVIE JEANJAQUET, Petitioners, v. MOL PHILIPPINES, INC. and CESAR G. TIUTAN, Respondents. Auza v. MOL (G.R. No. 175481; November 21, 2012).

FACTS: Petitioners Dionisio F. Auza, Jr. (Auza), Adessa F. Otarra and Elvie Jeanjaquet are employees of respondent MOL Philippines, Inc. (MOL). In 2002, Auza, et al. submitted their resignation letters. Auza, et al. were then given their separation pay and the monetary value of leave credits, 13th month pay, MOL cooperative shares and unused dental/optical benefits. Afterwhich, they executed Release and Quitclaims and then issued Separation Clearances.

In February 2004 or almost 15 months after their severance from employment, Auza, et al. filed separate Complaints for illegal dismissal. Auza, et al. insist that they were not given any choice but to resign after MOL informed them of the impending closure of the branch and that they would not receive any separation pay if the closure would precede their resignation. The LA dismissed their complaints.

On appeal, the NLRC ruled that Auza, et al. were illegally dismissed. Thus, MOL filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals. The CA ruled in favor of MOL.

ISSUE: Did not Auza, et al. voluntarily resign from employment?

HELD: Resignation is the formal pronouncement or relinquishment of an office. The overt act of relinquishment should be coupled with an intent to relinquish, which intent could be inferred from the acts of the employee before and after the alleged resignation.

It appears that petitioners, on their own volition, decided to resign from their positions after being informed of the managements decision that the Cebu branch would eventually be manned by a mere skeletal force. Contrary to their assertions, petitioners were not lured by any misrepresentation by respondents. Instead, they themselves were convinced that their separation was inevitable and for this, they voluntarily resigned. As aptly observed by the CA, no element of force can be deduced from their letters of resignation as the same even contained expressions of gratitude and thus contradicting their allegations that same were prepared by their employer.Although quitclaims are generally against public policy, voluntary agreements entered into and represented by a reasonable settlement are binding on the parties which may not be later disowned simply because of a change of mind. It is only where there is clear proof that the waiver was wangled from an unsuspecting or gullible person, or the terms of the settlement are unconscionable, that the law will step in to bail out the employee. Hence, the Court upheld the validity of the quitclaims signed by petitioners in exchange for the separation benefits they received from respondents.