SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 224004. December 6, 2017.]
SEVERINO V. TABASUARES, JR., petitioner,vs. UNIFRUTTI SERVICES, INC., respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 06 December 2017 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 224004 (Severino V. Tabasuares, Jr. vs. Unifrutti Services, Inc.). — Petitioner Severino V. Tabasuares, Jr. (Tabasuares) filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, seeking the reversal of the Decision 2 dated April 12, 2016, issued by the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 05317-MIN.
On February 1, 2008, Tabasuares was hired by respondent company Unifrutti Services, Inc., (Unifrutti) as Head of its Corporate Human Resource Group. He was given a salary of One Hundred Forty-One Thousand Two Hundred Pesos (Php141,200.00), and an additional payment of Forty Thousand Pesos (Php40,000.00) per month as reimbursement for the use of his vehicle for company business.
Sometime in July 2009, Tabasuares was caught exchanging inappropriate romantic and sexually charged text messages and phone conversations with a minor. The aforesaid exchanges, which were all recorded, caused scandal to the company. Because of this, Tabasuares sought an audience with Unifrutti's Chairman John Perrine (Perrine). During the meeting at Perrine's residence, Tabasuares manifested his willingness to leave the company. However, Tabasuares intimated that he is not financially prepared to lose his monthly income. In response to Tabasuares' predicament, Perrine purportedly offered a separation package consisting of Tabasuares' six months' salary, coupled with the following benefits, namely: (i) payment of latter's monthly Social Security System membership contributions from February 2008 until January 2010; (ii) vacation and sick leave monetary conversion; (iii) 13th month pay; and (iv) Php40,000.00 monthly reimbursement for the use of his personal car for company business. Tabasuares accepted the offer.
Thus, on August 20, 2009, Tabasuares tendered his resignation letter. The letter included the terms of the separation package allegedly discussed with Perrine. However, Perrine did not approve the resignation letter. Consequently, Tabasuares submitted another resignation letter on August 21, 2009. 3
Tabasuares claimed that Perrine refused to release the separation package agreed upon, which prompted him to file a Complaint 4 before the Labor Arbiter (LA) for Non-Payment of Salary, 13th Month Pay, Unused Vacation and Sick Leaves, Other Benefits and for Attorney's Fees. Tabasuares later amended his Complaint 5 to be one for "Non-Payment of Separation Pay Equivalent to Six Months' Salary, Vacation and Sick Leaves 15 Days Each, 13th Month Pay, Other Benefits and Attorney's Fees." HESIcT
Tabasuares claimed that he agreed to resign in exchange for Perrine's promised separation package. Perrine's refusal to release the separation package resulted in his constructive dismissal from employment.
On November 24, 2011, the LA rendered a Decision 6 dismissing Tabasuares' complaint for lack of merit. The LA ruled that Tabasuares was not constructively dismissed. Rather, Tabasuares voluntarily resigned without condition after being caught having inappropriate relations with a minor girl. Likewise, the LA held that Tabasuares is not entitled to separation pay. The LA ratiocinated that there was no cogent or logical reason for Perrine to grant such hefty sum of money upon the resignation of Tabasuares, as his impropriety constituted a valid ground for his dismissal, for which separation pay would not be awarded. In fact, Tabasuares' resignation letter, which adverted to an agreed separation package with Perrine, was not approved by Unifrutti's officers.
Aggrieved, Tabasuares filed a Memorandum of Appeal with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).
On appeal, the NLRC reversed the LA's findings. The NLRC ruled that Tabasuares involuntarily resigned from his employment. The NLRC surmised that it is preposterous for Tabasuares to leave such a high paying job, without getting a single centavo in exchange. Thus, the NLRC awarded separation pay and attorney's fees in favor of Tabasuares. 7
Dissatisfied with the ruling, Unifrutti filed an appeal before the CA.
On April 12, 2016, the CA rendered the assailed Decision 8 ruling against Tabasuares. The CA held that the totality of the evidence on record shows that Tabasuares voluntarily severed his employment with Unifrutti. Considering that Tabasuares voluntarily resigned, he is not entitled to the payment of separation pay. Neither is he entitled to an ex-gratia separation pay since Unifrutti's Board of Directors did not sanction such gratuity. 9
Undeterred, Tabasuares filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari, seeking the reversal of the assailed decision of the CA.
The issues for the Court's resolution may be summarized as follows: (i) whether or not Tabasuares was constructively dismissed; and (ii) whether or not Tabasuares is entitled to a separation pay package.
Ruling of the Court
The instant petition is bereft of merit.
It must be noted at the outset that the Court is not a trier of facts. The main issues raised by Tabasuares, which involve (i) the voluntariness of his resignation, and (ii) the existence of a separation pay package agreement, involve a review of the facts, which are outside the province of a petition for review on certiorari. 10
Be that as it may, the CA correctly concluded that Tabasuares' resignation was voluntary, and that he is not entitled to separation pay.
Jurisprudence defines resignation as follows:
"a formal pronouncement or relinquishment of a position or office. It is a voluntary act of an employee who is in a situation where he believes that personal reasons cannot be sacrificed in favor of the exigency of the service, and he has then no other choice but to disassociate himself from employment. The intent to relinquish must concur with the overt act of relinquishment. The acts of the employee before and after the alleged resignation must be considered in determining whether he in fact intended to terminate his employment." 11
As correctly observed by the CA, Tabasuares' intention to voluntarily relinquish his employment is evident from his acts prior to, and subsequent to the submission of his resignation letter, to wit: (i) Tabasuares himself sought an audience with Perrine to discuss the scandal he was embroiled in and manifested his willingness to resign so as to put an end to the scandal; (ii) the resignation letter evinces Tabasuares' irrevocable resignation as Unifrutti's Head for Corporate and Plantation Human Resource; (iii) Tabasuares informed his colleagues about his resignation even prior to his receipt of severance pay; (iv) notwithstanding his claim of constructive dismissal, Tabasuares never actually pursued a case for illegal dismissal; and (v) Tabasuares' stature, position and educational attainment disprove that he can be easily cajoled into resigning. 12
Likewise, neither may Tabasuares' claim of constructive dismissal prosper. Tabasuares was never coerced or forced into resigning. Neither did he state that his continued employment with Unifrutti was rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely; nor was he demoted, nor made to suffer from any act of discrimination or disdain. On the contrary, the facts show that Tabasuares voluntarily agreed to relinquish his position as a means of putting an end to the scandal he was involved in.
Suffice it to say, jurisprudence holds that it is not uncommon for an employee to resign to avoid the humiliation and embarrassment of being terminated for just cause, after the exposure of his malfeasance. 13 There is nothing reprehensible or illegal when the employer grants the employee a chance to resign and save face rather than smear the latter's employment record. 14
Considering that Tabasuares was not illegally dismissed from employment, his claim for separation pay must fail.
Admittedly, the Court acknowledges that separation pay may be awarded to an employee who voluntarily resigned, when it is stipulated in the employment contract or collective bargaining agreement, or it is sanctioned by established employer practice or policy. 15 These exceptions do not obtain in the case at bar. caITAC
Assuming arguendo that indeed, a separation pay package was mentioned between Tabasuares and Perrine, this was at best a discussion that could not bind Perrine, unless approved by Unifrutti's board of directors. As correctly opined by the CA, Tabasuares, being a high-ranking official of Unifrutti should be aware that a company officer like Perrine is without authority to act unilaterally, absent the concurrence of the board of directors. 16 More so, the separation package that Perrine purportedly acquiesced to, amounted to the hefty sum of One Million Seven Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php1,700,000.00). Thus, it was highly improbable for Perrine to unilaterally grant such request, without awaiting the Board of Director's approval. In fact, Perrine did not approve the resignation letter, as he knew that he had to await the decision of Unifrutti's Board of Directors. 17
It is an elementary principle in corporation law that the corporate powers of all corporations shall be exercised by the board of directors or trustees. 18 In fact, the Court held in Kwok v. Philippine Carpet Manufacturing Corporation, 19 that the personal act of the company president cannot bind the corporation. Even assuming that the company president promised an employee certain benefits, this undertaking cannot bind the corporation in the absence of any board resolution to that effect. 20
Indeed, jurisprudence holds that the president of a corporation possesses the power to enter into a contract for the corporation when the conduct on the part of both the president and corporation show that the former had been in the habit of acting in similar matters on behalf of the company and that the company had authorized him so to act and had recognized, approved and ratified his former and similar actions. 21 In the case at bar, it was not established that Perrine had regularly acted on matters of granting separation pay and that the Board of Directors had recognized and approved his acts on similar subject matters. In fact, the Board of Directors rejected the grant of separation pay to Tabasuares.
Based on the foregoing, it becomes all too apparent that the CA committed no reversible error in rendering the assailed decision and holding that Tabasuares voluntarily relinquished his position, and thus, was not constructively dismissed. Likewise, Tabasuares' claim for separation pay finds no basis in law and jurisprudence.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is DENIED. Accordingly, the Decision dated April 12, 2016 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 05317-MIN is AFFIRMED in toto."
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 10-27.
2. Penned by Associate Justice Ruben Reynaldo G. Roxas, with Associate Justices Edgardo T. Lloren and Rafael Antonio M. Santos, concurring; id. at 251-263.
3.Id. at 82.
4.Id. at 28-31.
5.Id. at 41-44.
6.Id. at 86-94.
7.Id. at 113-121.
8.Id. at 251-263.
9.Id. at 262-263.
10.Far Eastern Surety and Insurance Co., Inc. v. People, 721 Phil. 760, 769 (2013).
11.Central Azucarera De Bais, Inc., et al. v. Siason, 765 Phil. 399, 407 (2015).
12.Rollo, pp. 261-262.
13.Central Azucarera De Bais, Inc. and Chan v. Siason, supra note 11, at 408-409, citing Willi Hahn Enterprises v. Maghuyop, 488 Phil. 351, 356 (2004).
14.Central Azucarera De Bais, Inc. and Chan v. Siason, id. at 409, citing Sicangco v. NLRC, 305 Phil. 102, 107 (1994).
15.Villaruel v. Yeo Han Guan, 665 Phil. 212, 219-220 (2011), citing Hinatuan Mining Corporation v. NLRC, 335 Phil. 1090, (1997).
16.Rollo, pp. 261-262.
17.Id. at 262-263.
18.Batas Pambansa Blg. 68 (1980), Section 23.
19. 497 Phil. 8 (2005).
20.Id. at 21.
21.Id.