Philippines Today, Inc. vs. NLRC

A resignation need not use the word “resignation” to be valid; it may be inferred from the employee’s words and antecedent, contemporaneous, and subsequent conduct showing a clear intent to terminate employment. On the facts, Alegre’s offensive “Memorandum for File” and his acts after writing it constituted voluntary resignation, and a resignation once accepted cannot be unilaterally withdrawn without the employer’s consent.

PTI owns and publishes the Philippine Star, and the individual petitioners are its chairman, president, publisher, and treasurer. Alegre was a management-level employee of PTI, eventually serving as assistant to the publisher, a position of trust and confidence. The case is set against the Labor Code and constitutional policy favoring labor, which the SC weighed against the employer’s right to choose whom to employ.

Petitioner Philippines Today, Inc. (PTI) publishes the Philippine Star, and the individual petitioners are its chairman of the board, president, publisher and chairman of the editorial board, and treasurer. Private respondent Felix R. Alegre, Jr. was employed by PTI in July 1986 as a senior investigative reporter at a monthly salary of P8,000.00; he later became chief investigative writer and then assistant to the publisher, with monthly compensation increased to P10,000.00.

On October 20, 1988, Alegre filed a request for a thirty-day leave of absence effective that same date, citing his personal physician’s advice that he undergo further medical consultations abroad. Four days later, on October 24, 1988, he wrote a “Memorandum for File” addressed to Betty Go-Belmonte, with copies furnished to the members of the board of directors. The memorandum did not use the words “resign” or “resignation”; it narrated his grievances, complained of being treated like a pariah, of insults and innuendoes, of economic injustice and professional sabotage, and ended with “I’M HAVING IT ALL!” and “Thank you for everything.”

On December 6, 1988, Alegre received a letter from Belmonte dated November 9, 1988, stating that during the board meeting the board discussed his October 24 letter and decided to accept his resignation effective November 22, 1988, upon expiration of his one-month leave. The following day, Alegre wrote Belmonte expressing surprise and stating that he did not resign; he said he had filed a leave of absence and had sent a memorandum for file expressing his sentiments, and that if she read it as resignation, that was her responsibility. On January 2, 1989, through counsel, Alegre reiterated that he never resigned, accused petitioners of illegal dismissal, discrimination in promotions and benefits, and a ploy to oust him by treating the memorandum as a resignation, claimed mental anguish, social humiliation, besmirched reputation and moral shock, demanded indemnification, and stated that he was not insisting on being taken back after being shown he was no longer wanted. Petitioners’ counsel replied on January 19, 1989 that acceptance of the resignation was the board’s collective decision, that “nobody in his right mind would write a memorandum of the sort he wrote and still not resign,” that the memorandum was tantamount to resignation even without the word, and that the Star could not accede to the damages claim.

On May 17, 1989, Alegre filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and damages. The labor arbiter found that the memorandum showed an intention to resign despite the absence of the word, and relied on Alegre’s failure to report for work after his leave expired, his employment with the Office of Senator Laurel as chief of staff, and his clearing and removing of his personal files and belongings from his desk before he received the acceptance letter. At the labor arbitration, Belmonte testified that before the memorandum, Alegre had told her he wanted to leave and had signed another job, and that he said he would ask his two sons working with the company to leave too. Alegre admitted in his testimony that he was employed as chief of staff in Senator Sotero H. Laurel’s office sometime in November 1988, with compensation of P14,600.00 per month plus P2,000.00 driver’s allowance. The records contained no showing that Alegre actually underwent medical check-up abroad, and his request for extension of leave was not shown to have been approved.

• Voluntary Resignation: Petitioners argued that Alegre had spoken openly to Belmonte of his desire to leave the Philippine Star; that the contents of his memorandum indicated an intention not to return even without a categorical mention of resignation; that he never returned after his authorized leave expired and cleared his desk of personal belongings; and that he obtained employment as chief of staff in Senator Sotero H. Laurel’s office at a higher salary.
• Damages: Petitioners argued that, having been led to believe that Alegre wanted to resign and honestly perceiving the memorandum as a resignation, they could not be held liable for moral and exemplary damages; they also argued that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in awarding moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees without actual and legal basis.
• Backwages Computation: Petitioners argued that, even assuming illegal dismissal, the NLRC contravened Alex Ferrer, et al. vs. NLRC (Second Division) by computing backwages without deducting the amounts Alegre earned from his subsequent employment in Senator Laurel’s office.

• No Intention to Resign: Alegre maintained that he had no intention of resigning from PTI; in writing the memorandum, he was merely lamenting the work environment at PTI and apprising Belmonte of the situation.
• Unequivocal Resignation: He insisted that a resignation should be unequivocal in nature.
• Extension of Leave: His non-return to work after his original leave expired was explained by his subsequent request for an extension thereof due to medical reasons.
• Constructive Dismissal and Bad Faith: He contended that Belmonte’s letter obviated any desire for him to return to work since petitioners practically terminated his employment; petitioners’ tenacious resistance in admitting their mistake bespoke bad faith and showed their real intention to end his services.
• Damages: He contended that he was entitled to moral and exemplary damages. The Solicitor General supported private respondent’s position.

• Voluntary Resignation: Whether the “Memorandum for File” of Felix R. Alegre, Jr., which did not mention the words “resign” and/or “resignation,” juridically constituted voluntary resignation.
• Withdrawal of Resignation: Whether Alegre could unilaterally withdraw his resignation after PTI accepted it.
• Illegal Dismissal and Monetary Awards: Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in finding petitioners guilty of illegal dismissal and in awarding moral and exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, backwages, and separation pay.
• Backwages Computation: Whether, assuming illegal dismissal, the NLRC erred in computing backwages without deducting the amounts Alegre earned from his subsequent employment in Senator Laurel’s office.

• Voluntary Resignation: Yes. The memorandum, read with Alegre’s antecedent, contemporaneous, and subsequent acts, juridically constituted voluntary resignation despite the absence of the words “resign” or “resignation.”
• Withdrawal of Resignation: No. A resignation once accepted may not be withdrawn without the employer’s consent; Alegre could not unilaterally take back his resignation.
• Illegal Dismissal and Monetary Awards: Yes. The NLRC gravely abused its discretion because Alegre voluntarily resigned; there was no illegal dismissal and no basis for the monetary awards.
• Backwages Computation: Not reached. Because no illegal dismissal was established, the SC did not pass upon the computation of backwages.

• Voluntary Resignation: The SC held that resignation is a voluntary act, but no prescribed form is required; the intent to resign may be inferred from the employee’s words and antecedent, contemporaneous, and subsequent conduct. The NLRC was too strict and literal in using the dictionary definition of “resignation” without relating it to the factual circumstances. Alegre’s memorandum was not a mere grievance letter: it was abrasive, offensive, and confrontational, addressed to the chairman and copied to all board members, and contained incendiary and sarcastic remarks that negated any desire to improve work relations. Alegre was a professional journalist, persuasive writer, and law graduate; he knew how his letter would be perceived by PTI’s officers. He held a position of trust and confidence as assistant to the publisher, and his offensive language amounted to disloyalty and disrespect, rendering him unworthy of the trust demanded by his position. The SC also relied on Alegre’s subsequent acts: he did not prove the medical reason for his leave; he cleared his desk of personal belongings before knowing of the acceptance; he did not return to work after his leave expired; his extension request was not shown to have been approved; Belmonte testified that he had expressed an intention to leave; and he assumed a higher-paying job as chief of staff in Senator Laurel’s office around November 1988, which was incompatible with continued full-time work at the Star. These circumstances showed a clear intent to terminate employment, so the memorandum juridically constituted resignation. His non-return to work was not abandonment because abandonment requires clear and deliberate intent plus unjustified absence and overt acts, which were not the operative facts here.

• Withdrawal of Resignation: Having established that Alegre resigned, the SC ruled that he could not unilaterally withdraw it. Under Intertrod Maritime, Inc. vs. NLRC, resignations once accepted may not be withdrawn without the employer’s consent; if the employer accepts the withdrawal, the employee retains his job, but if the employer does not, the employee cannot claim illegal dismissal. This recognizes the contractual and consensual nature of employment. A resigned employee who wants his job back must re-apply and has the status of a stranger; he cannot arrogate to himself the same position he earlier left, as that would deprive the employer of the right to choose whom to employ. The SC distinguished Molave Tours Corporation vs. NLRC and People’s Security, Inc. vs. NLRC, where the resignations were involuntary, and Indophil vs. NLRC, where the resignation was not accepted. Here, Alegre’s resignation was voluntary and PTI accepted it.

• Illegal Dismissal and Monetary Awards: Because Alegre voluntarily resigned and PTI accepted the resignation, there was no illegal dismissal. The NLRC therefore gravely abused its discretion in finding constructive dismissal and in awarding backwages, separation pay, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees. The SC acknowledged the constitutional and Labor Code bias in favor of labor, but held that this policy does not authorize the oppression or self-destruction of the employer and does not convert a voluntary resignation into an illegal dismissal.

• Backwages Computation: The SC expressly stated that, since it found no illegal dismissal, it would no longer pass upon the two other issues raised by petitioners, which were mere consequences of the NLRC’s contrary finding. The issue on the computation of backwages therefore became moot.

• Resignation need not be express — No prescribed form is required; resignation may be inferred from the employee’s words and conduct. The SC found that Alegre’s memorandum, though it never used “resign” or “resignation,” constituted voluntary resignation when read with his acts.
• Totality of circumstances in interpreting resignation — A literal or dictionary interpretation of words is not controlling; the SC must consider the antecedent, contemporaneous, and subsequent acts of the employee. The SC applied this to reject the NLRC’s strict dictionary approach.
• Accepted resignation cannot be unilaterally withdrawn — A resignation once accepted may not be withdrawn without the employer’s consent. If the employer accepts the withdrawal, the employee retains his job; if not, the employee cannot claim illegal dismissal. The SC applied this rule from Intertrod Maritime, Inc. vs. NLRC.
• Abandonment vs. resignation — Abandonment requires clear and deliberate intent to abandon work, coupled with unjustified absence and overt acts showing that the employee does not want to work anymore. The SC held that abandonment did not apply because Alegre had voluntarily resigned.
• Position of trust and confidence — A managerial or confidential employee holds his position at the pleasure of the employer and must maintain trust and confidence. Offensive language and disrespectful conduct can breach that trust and support a finding of resignation.
• Labor law bias not absolute — The Constitution and Labor Code favor labor, but this policy does not justify oppression or self-destruction of the employer and does not override the employer’s right to choose whom to employ.

• “After a thorough scrutiny of the Memorandum for File of Respondent Alegre and a careful deliberation on the peculiar circumstances attendant to its writing and the antecedent, contemporaneous and subsequent actions of private respondent, we hold that said memorandum juridically constituted a letter of resignation.” — This is the SC’s core holding, resolving the pivotal issue despite the absence of the word “resignation.”
• “Courts and quasi-judicial bodies, in the exercise of their functions and in making decisions, must not be too dogmatic as to restrict themselves to literal interpretations of words, phrases and sentences. A complete and wholistic view must be taken in order to render a just and equitable judgment.” — This rejects the NLRC’s literal dictionary approach and states the totality-of-circumstances method.
• “It held that resignations, once accepted, may not be withdrawn without the consent of the employer. If the employer accepts the withdrawal, the employee retains his job. If the employer does not, the employee cannot claim illegal dismissal.” — This is the corollary rule the SC applied after finding that Alegre had resigned.
• “The law, in protecting the rights of the laborer, impels neither the oppression nor self-destruction of the employer.” — This explains why the labor-law bias did not save Alegre’s claim after his voluntary resignation.

• Intertrod Maritime, Inc. vs. NLRC, 198 SCRA 318, June 19, 1991 — Controlling precedent; held that a resignation once accepted may not be withdrawn without the employer’s consent.
• Molave Tours Corporation vs. NLRC, 250 SCRA 326, November 24, 1995 — Distinguished; involved an involuntary resignation, not a voluntary resignation accepted by the employer.
• People’s Security, Inc. vs. NLRC, 226 SCRA 146, September 8, 1993 — Distinguished; the employees were forced to resign due to financial need, hence the resignation was involuntary.
• Indophil vs. NLRC, 226 SCRA 723, September 27, 1993 — Distinguished; the resignation was not accepted, unlike Alegre’s accepted resignation.
• Kingsize vs. NLRC, 238 SCRA 349, November 24, 1994 — Cited for the rule that abandonment requires clear and deliberate intent coupled with unjustified absence and overt acts; held inapplicable because Alegre resigned.

• Constitution (labor-protection policy) — The SC acknowledged the constitutional bias in favor of labor but held that it does not authorize disregarding a voluntary resignation or oppressing the employer.
• Labor Code (labor-protection policy) — The SC likewise acknowledged the Labor Code’s bias in favor of labor, but applied it together with the consensual nature of employment and the employer’s right to choose whom to employ.