Jacob vs. Villaseran Maintenance Service Corp.

The burden of proving that an employee’s resignation was voluntary rests on the employer; similarly-worded, pro forma resignation letters and quitclaims that do not satisfy the mandatory requisites for validity do not establish voluntariness, and an employee who signs such documents under a false promise of reassignment is deemed illegally dismissed. The filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal shortly after the purported resignation negates any intent to sever the employment relationship.

Petitioners were employed by Villaseran Maintenance Service Corp., a domestic manpower services company, as janitors and electricians and were assigned to work at Manila Central University Hospital (MCU). In January 2016, MCU terminated its manpower service contract with Villaseran. Villaseran’s general manager, Maria Antonia V. Mercado, assured petitioners of new assignments with a new principal. Petitioners were instructed to draft resignation letters and sign identical Release and Quitclaim forms as a prerequisite for receiving their last pay and benefits from MCU. They complied, but no reassignment followed despite nearly two months of waiting. They consequently filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.

• Employment and service contract termination: Petitioners were janitors and electricians engaged by respondent Villaseran Maintenance Service Corp., a manpower services provider, and assigned to Manila Central University Hospital (MCU). Their employment dates ranged from 1999 to 2013. On January 31, 2016, MCU terminated its service contract with Villaseran, resulting in the removal of petitioners from their posts at the hospital.

• Promise of reassignment and execution of resignation letters: Respondent Mercado, Villaseran’s general manager, assured petitioners that they would be given new assignments with a new principal. In February 2016, she required them to draft resignation letters and sign identical Release and Quitclaim forms, supposedly as a formal requirement to receive their last pay and benefits from MCU. Petitioners complied, each writing a short, similarly worded resignation letter in Filipino and signing the pre-printed quitclaim.

• The resignation letters: The six handwritten notes uniformly stated that the employee “nagresign” (resigned) on a specific date in February 2016, with variations only in name, position, and date. They contained no additional explanation.

• The Release and Quitclaim forms: Each petitioner signed an identical pro forma document acknowledging receipt of a sum of money and waiving all claims against Villaseran. The amounts stated in the attached receipts corresponded to salary adjustments for the period October 4, 2013 to October 31, 2015 under National Capital Region Wage Orders, not to separation pay or final compensation for the MCU assignment.

• Post-resignation events: Only petitioners Sitjar and Talamante were absorbed by the new manpower agency contracted by MCU, allowing them to continue their work at the hospital. The remaining petitioners received no reassignment. After almost two months without word from respondents, petitioners filed the illegal dismissal complaint.

• Employer’s defense: Respondents maintained that petitioners voluntarily resigned, pointing to the handwritten letters and quitclaims. They alleged that petitioners refused an offer to return to work and demanded separation pay instead. Respondents further argued that Mercado could not be held personally liable.

• Involuntariness of Resignation: Petitioners contended that the resignation letters were not products of free will but of respondents’ fraudulent scheme; they were made to believe that the documents were necessary to receive their last pay and to facilitate promised reassignments. The identical wording of the letters and quitclaims showed they were dictated or copied from a template.

• Invalidity of Quitclaims: The amounts received were salary adjustments petitioners were legally entitled to, not reasonable consideration for waiving employment rights. The quitclaims did not contain the safeguards required by law and jurisprudence, and petitioners—of low educational attainment—did not fully understand their consequences.

• Conduct Negating Resignation: The filing of an illegal dismissal complaint and the waiting period for reassignment were inconsistent with an intent to sever the employment relationship. No employee in dire need of livelihood would voluntarily abandon a stable job only to sue for illegal dismissal.

• Lack of Reinstatement Offer: The alleged offer for them to return to work was a mere afterthought and was not proven.

• Voluntary Resignation: Respondents argued that petitioners voluntarily resigned, as evidenced by their own handwritten letters and signed quitclaims. The letters were unambiguous and showed a clear intent to relinquish employment. Petitioners never sought reinstatement and instead demanded separation pay, which was inconsistent with a claim of illegal dismissal.

• Refusal of Reinstatement: Respondents offered petitioners the opportunity to return to work, but petitioners refused because they had already been absorbed by MCU’s new manpower agency or had other employment.

• Validity of Quitclaims: Not all waivers and quitclaims are void; when executed voluntarily, with full understanding, and for credible and reasonable consideration, they must be respected.

• Limited Corporate Officer Liability: Mercado, as general manager, acted in good faith and cannot be held solidarily liable with the corporation absent proof of malice or bad faith.

• Illegal Dismissal vs. Voluntary Resignation: Whether petitioners voluntarily resigned or were illegally dismissed by respondent Villaseran.

• Solidary Liability of Corporate Officer: Whether respondent Maria Antonia V. Mercado may be held solidarily liable with the corporation for the illegal dismissal.

• Illegal Dismissal vs. Voluntary Resignation: The resignations were declared involuntary and petitioners were illegally dismissed. The burden to prove voluntariness rested on respondents, who failed to discharge it. The six similarly worded resignation letters, handwritten by petitioners, were highly suspect and suggested that petitioners merely copied a pro forma template—a circumstance that jurisprudence treats as indicative of involuntariness. The Release and Quitclaim forms uniformly omitted the requisites for a valid quitclaim under Carolina’s Lace Shoppe v. Maquilan: no fixed compromise amount was stated as full settlement; the benefits given up were not identified; there was no statement that the consequences were explained in a language understood by the employees; and there was no declaration that the document was signed voluntarily. The payments petitioners received were mere salary differentials for a prior period to which they were already legally entitled, thus lacking the credible and reasonable consideration necessary for a binding waiver. The act of filing an illegal dismissal complaint after waiting in vain for the promised reassignment squarely negated any genuine intent to resign. The subsequent absorption of two petitioners by a new agency did not erase Villaseran’s liability, as the employer had used the same deceptive scheme against all petitioners and could not escape responsibility by invoking the goodwill of a third party. Because reinstatement had become impracticable given the strained relations and petitioners’ preference for separation pay, backwages and separation pay in lieu of reinstatement were proper.

• Solidary Liability of Corporate Officer: Mercado was not held solidarily liable. A corporate officer may be held personally liable for illegal dismissal only upon proof of malice or bad faith by clear and convincing evidence. Petitioners’ allegations of a fraudulent scheme, while sufficient to establish illegal dismissal by the corporation, did not demonstrate that Mercado acted with a dishonest purpose, moral obliquity, or conscious wrongdoing. Her participation was confined to having petitioners sign the documents on behalf of the corporation, and bad faith could not be presumed from that alone.

• Burden of Proof in Resignation Cases (Torreda v. Investment and Capital Corp. of the Phils.) — When an employer introduces a document as proof of voluntary resignation and the employee specifically denies its authenticity and due execution, the employer bears the burden of proving that the document was executed genuinely and voluntarily. The act of the employee before and after the alleged resignation must be evaluated to ascertain true intent. Applied here, respondents failed to prove the due execution and voluntariness of the handwritten letters and quitclaims.

• Requisites for a Valid Quitclaim or Release (Carolina’s Lace Shoppe v. Maquilan) — To prevent disputes, a quitclaim must contain: (1) a fixed amount as full and final compromise settlement; (2) a statement of the benefits the employee is relinquishing, with corresponding amounts; (3) an explanation that the employer clearly communicated the consequences of signing in a language known to the employee; and (4) a declaration that the employee signed voluntarily, with full understanding and without threat or intimidation. The quitclaims signed by petitioners lacked all these requisites and were therefore invalid.

• Pro Forma Resignation Letters as Evidence of Involuntariness — Similarly worded, handwritten resignation letters that appear to have been copied from a template are highly suspect and suggest the absence of voluntariness (Mobile Protective & Detective Agency v. Ompad; Blue Angel Manpower and Security Services, Inc. v. Court of Appeals). The near-identical letters in this case reinforced the finding of involuntary resignation.

• Inconsistency of Filing a Complaint with Voluntary Resignation — A resignation, which is the voluntary relinquishment of employment, is incompatible with the subsequent filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal. If the employee immediately sues for illegal dismissal, the purported resignation cannot be deemed voluntary (Demex Rattancraft, Inc. v. Leron; ICT Marketing Services Inc. v. Sales).

• Absorption by New Agency Does Not Negate Illegal Dismissal — The fact that some dismissed employees were later absorbed by a new contractor of the principal does not extinguish the liability of the original employer that illegally dismissed them (FVR Skills and Services Exponents, Inc. (Skillex) v. Seva). The original employer remains answerable for the violation of security of tenure.

• Solidary Liability of Corporate Officers in Labor Cases — Directors, officers, and managers may be held solidarily liable with the corporation for illegal dismissal only if they acted with malice or bad faith. Bad faith requires proof by clear and convincing evidence of a dishonest purpose, moral obliquity, or breach of a known duty through ill will, and is never presumed (Polymer Rubber Corp. v. Salamuding; Ever Electrical Manufacturing, Inc. v. Samahang Manggagawa ng Ever Electrical/NAMAWU).

• “The act of the employee before and after the alleged resignation must be 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 resignation and the employee specifically denies the authenticity and due execution of said document, the employer is burdened to prove the due execution and genuineness of such document.” (Torreda v. Investment and Capital Corp. of the Phils., underscoring in original)

• “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: A fixed amount as full and final compromise settlement; The benefits of the employees if possible with the corresponding amounts, which the employees are giving up in consideration of the fixed compromise amount; A statement that the employer 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 forfeiting or relinquishing their right to receive the benefits which are due them under the law; and A statement that the employees signed and executed the document voluntarily, and had fully understood the contents of the document and that their consent was freely given without any threat, violence, duress, intimidation, or undue influence exerted on their person.” (Carolina’s Lace Shoppe v. Maquilan)

• “[T]he undated, similarly worded resignation letters tended to show that the guards were made to copy the pro-forma letters, in their own hand, to make them appear more convincing that the guards had voluntarily resigned. … the element of voluntariness of the resignations is even more suspect considering that the second set of resignation letters were pre-drafted, similarly worded, and with blank spaces filled in with the effectivity dates of the resignations.” (Blue Angel Manpower and Security Services, Inc. v. Court of Appeals)

• “[P]etitioner immediately filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. Resignation, it has been held, is inconsistent with the filing of a complaint.” (ICT Marketing Services Inc. v. Sales)

• Torreda v. Investment and Capital Corporation of the Philippines, G.R. No. 229881, September 5, 2018 — Cited as the controlling standard on the employer’s burden to prove voluntariness of resignation when the employee denies the authenticity and due execution of the resignation document.

• Carolina’s Lace Shoppe v. Maquilan, G.R. No. 219419, April 10, 2019 — Laid down the four requisites for a valid quitclaim or release; applied to invalidate the quitclaims signed by petitioners.

• Mobile Protective & Detective Agency v. Ompad, 497 Phil. 621 (2005) — Noted that pro forma resignation letters copied in the employee’s handwriting suggest lack of voluntariness.

• Blue Angel Manpower and Security Services, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 582 Phil. 159 (2008) — Ruled that similarly worded, pre-drafted resignation letters are highly suspect and indicate forced resignation.

• Demex Rattancraft, Inc. v. Leron, 820 Phil. 693 (2017) — Required that overt acts, considered as a whole, must clearly evince the employee’s objective of discontinuing employment; intent cannot be lightly inferred from ambivalent acts.

• ICT Marketing Services Inc. v. Sales, 769 Phil. 498 (2015) — Emphasized that filing a complaint for illegal dismissal is inconsistent with voluntary resignation and does not shift the burden of proof to the employee.

• FVR Skills and Services Exponents, Inc. (Skillex) v. Seva, 746 Phil. 244 (2014) — Held that absorption of employees by a new contractor does not negate the original employer’s liability for illegal dismissal.

• Polymer Rubber Corporation v. Salamuding, 715 Phil. 141 (2013) — Enunciated the rule that corporate officers may be held solidarily liable for illegal dismissal only upon proof of malice or bad faith.

• Article 279 (now Article 294), Labor Code — The constitutional and statutory guaranty of security of tenure: an employee may be terminated only for just or authorized cause; an unjustly dismissed employee is entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and to full backwages. Applied as the basis for awarding backwages and separation pay in lieu of reinstatement to the illegally dismissed petitioners.

• Article 111, Labor Code — In cases of unlawful withholding of wages, attorney’s fees of ten percent (10%) of the total monetary award may be recovered. Applied to sustain the award of attorney’s fees.

Perlas-Bernabe, S.A.J. (Chairperson), Gesmundo, J., and M. Lopez, J., concurred. Rosario, J., was on official leave.