G.R. No. 177407 - Atienza vs. Board of Medicine

Petitioner Jude Darry Del Rio was employed by respondent DPO Philippines, Inc., a Belgian multi-national food distribution company.
He was tasked with establishing and managing the company’s operations in Cebu to eventually cover Visayas and Mindanao, and later was involved in setting up the Davao office.
On September 7, 2009, petitioner submitted his notice of resignation, which was to take effect on October 7, 2009.
Respondent DPO accepted his resignation via a letter dated September 14, 2009 and publicly announced his resignation on October 11, 2009.
After his resignation took effect, petitioner realized that he had not been paid his salary for the period from September 16 to October 7, 2009.

Respondent DPO denied these monetary claims.
DPO also contended that petitioner, before his resignation, had engaged in activities that directly competed with the business of DPO, which violated the non-competition clause in his employment contract.
It was established that on or about August 28, 2009, petitioner secured SEC registration for a corporation named Judphilan Foods, whose primary business purpose closely mirrored that of DPO, raising issues of disloyalty and conflict of interest.

Petitioner filed a complaint with the Regional Arbitration Branch of the NLRC on October 9, 2009 seeking recovery of his monetary claims.
The Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision dated June 25, 2010, ruling in favor of petitioner by awarding:

Unpaid salaries covering the period.
Additional benefits including 13th month pay, tax refund, and commissions for August and September 2009.
Separation pay amounting to ₱409,500.00, resulting in a total computed award of ₱520,192.75.

DPO appealed the ruling before the NLRC, but the NLRC, in its January 26, 2011 Decision, denied the appeal and affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s decision in toto.
A subsequent Resolution dated March 31, 2011 from the NLRC denied DPO’s motion for reconsideration.

Respondent DPO filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA), contesting the award of separation pay despite petitioner’s voluntary resignation.
DPO argued:

There was no established company practice or policy providing for separation pay to employees who resign voluntarily.
The instances wherein separation pay had been given to other employees (Legaspi and Martinez) were isolated gestures, intended as an incentive for a graceful exit rather than an established practice.
Even if such practice had been later developed, petitioner could not benefit from it since he had already resigned.

The CA, in its Decision dated November 6, 2013 and Resolution dated February 7, 2014, modified the NLRC ruling by deleting the award of separation pay.
Petitioner then elevated the matter on certiorari, contesting the CA’s decision, arguing that the CA improperly considered new arguments and disturbed established findings made by both the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC.

Whether the deletion of the award of separation pay by the CA in favor of petitioner is correct, considering:

The fact that petitioner voluntarily resigned from employment.
The absence of any explicit stipulation in the employment contract or the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) that entitles a resigning employee to separation pay.
Whether there existed an established company practice or policy to award separation pay to employees who tender their resignation.
The propriety of considering arguments raised by respondents in the proceedings before the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC regarding the nature and timing of separation pay granted to other employees.