A.M. No. 2017-07-SC, A.C. No. 12323 - Cobarrubias-Nabaza vs. Lavandero

Remoticado was employed by Typical Construction Trading Corporation as a helper/laborer, with his most recent project being the Jedic Project at First Industrial Park in Batangas.
On December 6, 2010, records show that Remoticado was absent without official leave, and he remained absent until December 20, 2010.

Upon his return on December 20, 2010, Remoticado informed the Field Human Resources Officer, Pedro Nielo, that he was resigning due to personal reasons, citing illness as an explanation.
Nielo advised him to return the following day to complete the necessary reporting of his resignation and to process his final pay.
On December 21, 2010, Remoticado received his final pay amounting to ₱5,082.53. Dissatisfied with the computation—arguing he was entitled to separation pay for two years of service—he protested.
Despite his protest, Remoticado proceeded to sign and affix his thumbmark on a document titled Kasulatan ng Pagbawi ng Karapatan at Kawalan ng Paghahabol, essentially a waiver and quitclaim, which served to relinquish any further claims against the employer.

On January 10, 2011, after having executed the waiver and quitclaim, Remoticado filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, asserting that on December 23, 2010, he was told to stop reporting for work due to an alleged “debt at the canteen.”
Remoticado claimed that thereafter he was prevented from entering the premises of Typical Construction, implying an employer-initiated termination.
The complaint confronted earlier determinations:

Labor Arbiter Dela Cruz, in an October 11, 2011 Decision, dismissed the complaint on the basis that his resignation was voluntary.
The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in its January 11, 2012 Decision, and the Court of Appeals in its November 29, 2012 Decision and March 26, 2013 Resolution, respectively, sustained that there was no grave abuse of discretion and affirmed the prior findings that no unlawful termination occurred.

Evidence from sworn statements by Nielo and two co-workers (Salmero Pedros and Jovito Credo) substantiated that Remoticado had voluntarily resigned by failing to report as scheduled initially and later by confirming his resignation.
The existence of the waiver and quitclaim, executed on December 21, 2010, served as additional evidence supporting the employer’s claim and the factual record established by the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC.
Remoticado’s narrative of being terminated on December 23, 2010 was found to be bare and lacking in corroborative details, especially when contrasted with the clear, consistent records from multiple agencies.

Whether the petitioner, Remoticado, was illegally terminated or if he voluntarily resigned from his employment.

The core question is whether the sequence and nature of events constitute an employer-initiated termination or merely a voluntary resignation.
A related sub-issue is whether Typical Construction had to discharge its burden by showing just cause for termination, predicated on a demonstrable fact of dismissal.

Whether the petitioner’s assertion that Typical Construction failed to prove the validity of his dismissal is supported by substantial evidence.

Specifically, the issue involves the proper allocation of burden of proof in illegal termination cases: the petitioner must first establish the fact of dismissal by the employer before the employer’s burden of proving just cause comes into play.

Whether the Petition for Review on Certiorari improperly raises questions of fact beyond questions of law, given that factual determinations made by lower tribunals are conclusive when backed by substantial evidence.