A.M. No. P-11-2914 - Dy Teban Trading Co., Inc. vs. Verga

Elena J. Castro, a 58-year-old sewer, was employed by Fortuny Garments Corporation since 1985.
Johnny Co, serving as the president of the corporation, is the petitioner in this case.

Elena received her salaries and other emoluments up to December 21, 1996.
On December 16, 1996, her daughter underwent a caesarian operation, prompting Elena to take a leave of absence due to the absence of care for her newborn.
Upon her return to work on December 23, 1996, she was told by Elsa Co, the co-manager and wife of Johnny Co, that she had to stop working because she was “already old.”
Despite her insistence that she was fit to work, Elena was informed that she had already been dismissed due to her absence for several days following her leave.
In the first week of January 1997, when Elena reported again for work, she was again told that her employment had been terminated.

Elena filed a complaint claiming illegal dismissal and demanding monetary benefits including unpaid overtime pay.
The petitioner contended that Elena had voluntarily resigned, basing its claim primarily on a cash voucher dated January 30, 1996, which purportedly served as her resignation letter.
Elena countered that she did not sign such a resignation letter willingly and alleged that blank vouchers were previously circulated to employees to serve as proof of payment (specifically for SSS premiums).
Payroll records indicate that Elena continued to work and receive salaries up to December 21, 1996, thereby contradicting the purported resignation on January 30, 1996.
The cash voucher, which was signed and approved, appears to have been manipulated to fabricate a voluntary resignation and the corresponding separation pay of ₱35,000.00.

The Labor Arbiter initially rendered a decision dismissing Elena’s complaint, holding that she had voluntarily resigned; this decision was premised on the alleged resignation letter and the interpretation of her family circumstances.
The decision was later affirmed by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) on July 21, 1999.
Elena then elevated the case to the Court of Appeals (CA), which on June 28, 2001, reversed the NLRC and Labor Arbiter decisions by holding that the documentary evidence actually betrayed the petitioner’s claim of voluntary resignation.
Following a motion for reconsideration by the petitioner, which cited additional evidence such as the SSS certification indicating her disconnection from employment effective January 31, 1996, the CA denied the motion.
Petitioner then filed the instant petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, alleging grave errors and reversals of findings of fact by the lower courts.

Whether the documented evidence, particularly the cash voucher dated January 30, 1996, legitimately proves that Elena voluntarily resigned.
Whether the discrepancies between the dates on the cash voucher and the payroll records (which show her employment continuing until December 21, 1996) undermine the claim of voluntary resignation.
Whether the petitioner met its burden in proving that the alleged cash voucher was executed as a true and voluntary expression of resignation.
Whether the facts and the manner in which the resignation document was presented and signed suggest an act of illegality or mere administrative regularity.
Whether the decision of the lower courts that ruled in favor of Elena as having been illegally dismissed was based on a proper evaluation of the evidence.