Facts:
- Parties and controversy
- Petitioners Guatson International Travel and Tours, Inc., Philippine Integrated Labor Assistance Corporation (Philac), and Mercury Express International Courier Services, Inc. (MEREX) assailed the Decision dated March 21, 1991 and Resolution dated May 31, 1991 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in Case No. NLRC-NCR-00-11-0451-88 titled *Jolly M. Almoradie v. Guatson’s Travel Company, Philac and MEREX*.
- Private respondent Jolly Almoradie claimed he was illegally dismissed by being forced to resign through the acts of Henry Ocier, Vice-President and General Manager of petitioner Guatson Travel.
- Employment history and transfers
- Almoradie was first employed by MEREX in October 1983 as Messenger, receiving a monthly salary of P800.00.
- When MEREX closed its operations, Almoradie was absorbed by Philac, also as Messenger, with an increased salary of P1,200.00.
- In September 1986, Almoradie was transferred to Guatson Travel (alleged sister company of MEREX and Philac) as Liaison Officer with a salary of P1,864.00.
- Thereafter, Almoradie was promoted to Sales Representative sometime in April 1988.
- Events leading to the resignation
- On April 30, 1988, Almoradie was issued three separate memoranda ordering him to explain within specified time limits:
1)
“IOM/88-70”: to explain why he did not want to sell.
2)
“IOM/88-71”: to explain why he went to
BEMIL and who sent him there.
3)
“IOM-88”: to explain multiple matters, including the reasons he wanted to be a messenger instead of a sales representative, confrontation issues, failure to answer a memo issued by
Lou Cantara, changes of mind about joining a sales blitz, refusal to sell certain products recommended by
Myrna de Vera, and the meaning of
“You pirated me from Philac...”
- Almoradie responded within the time given to each charge, and his explanations in substance were:
1) He denied he did not want to sell; he claimed he was hampered by financial constraints and shouldered expenses personally for sales promotion.
2) He claimed BEMIL was a customer and he went there for ticketing and booking inquiries, including visits on April 29 and April 30, 1988.
3) He claimed the sales representative job entailed so much expense that he preferred to be returned to messenger work; he admitted confrontations occurred but denied fault.
4) He asserted he answered Lou Cantara’s memo and that he was given until May 2, 1988.
5) He explained he said yes to join the sales blitz but allegedly changed his mind because Henry Ocier summoned him to his office, and when he left, the group had already gone.
6) He denied refusing to sell products recommended by Myrna de Vera and stated he had been selling rates and package tours since April 1, 1988.
- On May 4, 1988, Almoradie was reverted to Messenger; sometime in September 1988, he was given the position of Account Executive, described as similar in nature to a sales representative position.
- Almoradie accepted the Account Executive transfer with an understanding that he would only discharge Account Executive duties and no longer be required to do messenger work.
- Alleged forced resignation
- In the morning of October 1, 1988, Almoradie was allegedly summoned by Henry Ocier to Ocier’s office.
- Almoradie alleged he was forced to resign on the same day by Henry Ocier’s acts and threats.
- Almoradie claimed that Ocier:
1) Taunted him with threats that if he would not resign, Ocier would file charges against him that would adversely affect Almoradie’s chances of being employed in the future.
2) Even provided the pen and paper upon which Almoradie wrote and signed the resignation letter dictated by Ocier.
- After the incident, Almoradie sought the help of friend Isagani Mallari, who advised reporting to the Barangay Captain.
- Almoradie filed a complaint for Illegal Dismissal on November 14, 1988.
- Labor Arbiter’s disposition
- The Labor Arbiter dismissed Almoradie’s case.
- The Labor Arbiter reasoned that it was difficult to conclude Almoradie was forced to resign, noting:
1) Petitioner’s claim that Henry Ocier was out of town when the resignation letter was executed.
2) Petitioner’s claim that Ocier “just saw” the resignation letter when he arrived.
- The Labor Arbiter concluded Almoradie apparently defied the order for his transfer/designation as account executive before he executed the resignation, and thus chose to resign.
- The Labor Arbiter treated the designation as account executive as management prerogative, and concluded the resignation letter:
1) was executed in Almoradie’s handwriting;
2) was spontaneous; and
3) was made out of his own free will.
- The Labor Arbiter held that Almoradie resented his earlier transfer from messenger work as well as the order requiring him to explain charges, and found “the only graceful exit” was to execute the resignation letter.
- NLRC’s reversal
- Upon appeal, the NLRC reversed and found the resignation was not voluntary.
- The NLRC anchored its reversal on factors including:
1) Almoradie was a
permanent employee working under Ocier for
five years.
2) He received a fairly good salary considering he was single.
3) There was no evidence showing Ocier was indeed not in town on October 1, 1988.
4) There was no showing that Almoradie had a potential employer at the time of resignation.
5) Almoradie reacted immediately by seeking assistance from a friend in a similar situation and by reporting to the barangay for redress.
- The NLRC characterized the issue as whether Almoradie was illegally dismissed by being forced to resign as narrated.
- Supreme Court’s evaluation of the NLRC’s finding of forced resignation
- The Supreme Court held that it agreed with the NLRC that Almoradie’s resignation was not voluntary and that the Labor Arbiter erred in relying on conclusions not supported by substantial evidence.
- The Court noted evidentiary circumstances suggesting a scheme:
1) As early as April 1988, when Almoradie was promoted to Sales Representative, management allegedly “caught the ire” of management, leading to
three memoranda in one day ordering him to answer specific charges.
2) The Court found it “intriguing” why Almoradie was later promoted again to Account Executive after being reverted from Sales Representative back to Messenger, suggesting management intended to “really rid him from the company.”
3) The Court treated the argument that Ocier’s words “I will file charges against you” and “I have a very good lawyer” were insufficient to constitute force or coercion as unpersuasive.
- Supreme Court’s legal treatment of intimidation and vitiation of consent
- The Court ruled that intimidation may vitiate consent when requisites concur, namely:
1) intimidation caused the consent;
2) the threatened act was unjust or unlawful;
3) the threat was real or serious with evident disproportion between the evil and resistance that a person can offer, leading the person to choose the lesser evil; and
4) the threat produced a well-grounded fear because the person making it had the means or ability to inflict the threatened injury to person or property.
- The Court referenced the principle that when one who commands respect and reverence wrongly exerts pressure upon subordinates to exact an act against their will, the pressure constitutes intimidation sufficient to vitiate consent.
- The Court held that Ocier’s conduct went beyond mere utterances because Ocier threatened to block Almoradie’s future employment if he did not resign.
- The Court treated the threat as not farfetched given Almoradie was not even a co...(Subscriber-Only)