G.R. No. 122876 - Cheniver Deco Print Technics Corp. vs. National Labor Relations Commission

Nelson B. Gan was hired on February 9, 2001 by Galderma Philippines, Inc. as Product Manager for its Consumer Products Division, handling the Cetaphil Brand Product Lines.
His employment package included a fixed monthly salary (initially PHP 30,000.00), various allowances, benefits (e.g., car allowance, rice subsidy, vision care, telephone reimbursement, leave credits), and a multi-tiered sales incentive scheme consisting of monthly, year-to-date (YTD), and annual incentives.
Subsequent to his satisfactory performance in 2001, Gan received positive performance appraisals, salary increases (e.g., a 40% increase with salary rising to PHP 42,000.00 effective January 2002), and additional revisions and enhancements to his incentive programs as communicated through written office correspondences.

Initially under the supervision of Sales and Marketing Manager Stephen C. Peregrino, Gan’s reporting line changed effective September 1, 2001 when he began reporting directly to the President and General Manager, Rosendo C. Veneracion.
With his proven performance, Gan was later provided training on additional product lines (Benzac and Locetar) to expand his product management responsibilities.
This expansion necessitated a revision of his incentive scheme, wherein the monthly, YTD, and annual incentives were reallocated among the original consumer line and the two new product lines.

A series of interactions between Gan and his superiors (primarily Veneracion and, at times, Senior Product Manager Gerry M. Castro) are chronicled:

The incident on March 4, 2002, when Gan was admonished for taking an emergency sick leave immediately after his vacation, and his subsequent apology.
Disputes arising from Gan’s submission of a five-year sales forecast and marketing program for a Benzac anti-acne product, during which Veneracion questioned Gan’s competence.
On March 7, 2002, Veneracion visited Gan’s office multiple times demanding basic marketing data (advertising rates) and criticizing his performance when Gan explained the unavailability of such data.
A series of confrontations where Veneracion, in closed-door meetings, allegedly lambasted Gan—accusing him of being slow, uncooperative, and a distraction—with repeated insinuations that Gan should reconsider his stay (i.e., effectively suggesting resignation or dismissal).
On April 11, 2002, following a meeting during which Gan was informed about a revised (and reduced) incentive scheme, further discussions led to direct orders from superiors that contributed to an atmosphere of hostility.

On April 11, 2002, Gan submitted his resignation citing his intent “to pursue the establishment of his own business or explore opportunities with other companies,” after being confronted with an ultimatum—either face termination (with a 15-day period to find another job) or resign with a forced “grace period” arrangement.
The forced resignation was accompanied by:

An agreement for a 90-day pay “sweetener” during which Gan was relieved from duty but was still required to submit periodic field reports to provide the appearance of continued work.
The concession by Gan to sign a resignation letter whose content was, it is alleged, dictated by Veneracion in order to legitimize the payment of his final pay and to serve as documentation in the internal records of Galderma.

After submitting and having his resignation accepted, Gan was paid his benefits and salary until July 15, 2002, though final settlement (PHP 50,425.02) was conditioned on signing a quitclaim—a condition Gan later refused, leading to a dispute over unpaid sums.
Gan subsequently filed a complaint for illegal constructive dismissal and other monetary claims, alleging that the resignation was not voluntary but the result of harassment and coercive actions by his superiors.
The Labor Arbiter and the NLRC dismissed his complaint, finding that the resignation was voluntary and that no legal basis for constructive dismissal could be established.

Whether Gan’s resignation was voluntary or a product of constructive dismissal involving harassment, intimidation, or coercion.

The central issue pivots on the interpretation of Gan’s resignation letter and whether it reflects an uncoerced decision or one dictated by hostile acts by management.
The analysis involves the question of whether the alleged “harassing” acts by Veneracion (and, to some extent, Castro) constituted sufficient grounds to vitiate Gan’s consent.

Whether the revised 2002 incentive scheme, particularly its immediate implementation and deduction from Gan’s pay, amounted to an illegal or unilateral change in the terms of employment.

The petition challenges the propriety of the incentive scheme revision imposed on Gan at a time when additional responsibilities were assigned.
It also examines whether proper notice and transition were accorded before its implementation.

The adequacy of the evidence presented to prove that Gan was forced to resign, including whether the sequence of management’s directives and remarks could legally be characterized as constructive dismissal.

The issue further involves the weight given to Gan’s own actions (e.g., submitting a resignation letter, his subsequent work behavior), and whether his managerial background implies full understanding of the resignation’s implications.