Case Digest (G.R. No. 188514)
Facts:
Petitioners Maria Lourdes D. Castells and Shalimar Centi-Mandanas challenged the Resolutions of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 101971 that dismissed their petition for certiorari for being filed out of time. The petition stemmed from an illegal dismissal complaint filed against respondent Saudi Arabian Airlines (SAUDIA), where the Labor Arbiter ruled that petitioners did not voluntarily resign and ordered SAUDIA to pay full backwages and other monetary awards, but the NLRC later reversed and dismissed the complaint, prompting petitioners’ resort to certiorari.Petitioners obtained a CA Resolution dated January 29, 2008 granting their Motion for Extension to file a petition for certiorari. After the petition was filed on February 4, 2008 (the next working day after February 2, 2008, which was a Saturday), the CA later reconsidered and, in a Resolution dated August 28, 2008, refused admission for alleged non-compliance with the reglementary period under Section 4, Ru
Case Digest (G.R. No. 188514)
Facts:
- Issuance and implementation of the transfer order
- Respondent Saudi Arabian Airlines (SAUDIA) issued a memo dated August 24, 2004 regarding the transfer of ten flight attendants, including petitioners Maria Lourdes D. Castells (Castells) and Shalimar Centi-Mandanas (Centi-Mandanas), from Manila to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia (Jeddah) due to operational requirements (transfer order).
- Centi-Mandanas complied with the transfer order, while Castells did not.
- Petitioners’ narration of how their resignations were obtained
- Centi-Mandanas’ account
- Centi-Mandanas alleged that after her arrival in Jeddah, she was told her contract would no longer be renewed.
- She alleged she was asked to sign a pre-typed resignation letter.
- She maintained that she never wished to resign, and that SAUDIA allegedly left her no other viable choice because it would terminate her services anyway.
- She stated that, despite not wishing to resign, she filled out the resignation form handed to her.
- Castells’ account
- Castells alleged that upon her non-compliance with the transfer order, she prepared a resignation letter stating she felt she was being forced to resign.
- She further alleged that the SAUDIA Manila Office Manager told her to amend the resignation letter to state that she was voluntarily resigning, and that she reluctantly followed.
- Resort to legal action for illegal dismissal
- Petitioners, together with a co-flight attendant, Maria Joy Teresa O. Bilbao (Bilbao), filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against SAUDIA.
- The complaint sought: reinstatement, full backwages, moral and exemplary damages, and attorneys fees.
- Petitioners alleged that they heard stories that Jeddah-based flight attendants aged thirty-nine to forty (39 to 40) years old—at the same age as petitioners—were already processing their resignations.
- Petitioners claimed the transfer order was made so that they would be terminated upon their arrival in Jeddah.
- SAUDIA’s defense anchored on voluntariness and releases
- SAUDIA maintained that the resignations were intelligently and voluntarily made.
- It asserted that the petitioners’ and Bilbao’s resignation letters (subject letters) were penned and duly signed by them.
- SAUDIA relied on an undertaking (subject undertaking) executed by petitioners and Bilbao, acknowledging receipt of various sums of money.
- SAUDIA claimed the undertaking contained an irrevocable and unconditional release of SAUDIA, its directors, stockholders, officers, and employees from any claim or demand in law or equity arising from their employment.
- Proceedings before the Labor Arbiter
- Decision dated August 31, 2006
- The Labor Arbiter (LA) found SAUDIA guilty of illegal dismissal.
- The LA ordered SAUDIA to pay each of petitioners and Bilbao full backwages from the time of illegal dismissal until finality of the decision.
- The LA also ordered separation pay of one month salary for every year of service, less the amount they had already received, and ordered attorneys fees.
- LA findings on voluntariness and effect of the undertaking
- The LA held that petitioners and Bilbao did not voluntarily resign.
- The LA found that SAUDIA allegedly forced them to resign due to their old age, evidenced by the scheme of transferring them to Jeddah and coercing them to resign under the pain of actual termination.
- The LA ruled that the subject undertaking, described as akin to a quitclaim, did not bar petitioners and Bilbao from filing a case against SAUDIA.
- The LA noted, however, that petitioners’ and Bilbao’s acceptance of the benefits pursuant to the undertaking would only result in the deduction of the monetary awards due.
- Proceedings before the NLRC
- Resolution dated June 25, 2007
- On SAUDIA’s appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed and set aside the LA ruling.
- The NLRC thereby dismissed the illegal dismissal complaint.
- NLRC findings supporting voluntariness and validity of the undertaking
- The NLRC ruled that the presence of words of gratitude in the subject letters negated any claim of coercion or threat on SAUDIA’s part.
- The NLRC held that the subject undertaking executed by petitioners and Bilbao was valid.
- The NLRC reasoned that petitioners and Bilbao were well-educated, and thus could not be easily tricked or inveigled into signing the undertaking.
- The NLRC also noted that petitioners and Bilbao had received more than sufficient consideration upon execution of the undertaking.
- Denial of motions for reconsideration
- Petitioners and Bilbao filed motions for reconsideration, which were denied by Resolution dated October 26, 2007.
- CA proceedings involving timeliness of the certiorari petition ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Whether the CA correctly refused admission of the subject petition for certiorari
- Whether, notwithstanding the wording of A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC, the CA had discretion to grant an extension in compelling circumstances.
- Whether A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC effectively removed discretion to allow extensions for filing a petition ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)