G.R. No. 40681 - Dy Buncio and Co., Inc. vs. Tong

Petitioner Jhorizaldy Uy was hired by respondent Centro Ceramica Corporation as a full-time Sales Executive on March 21, 1999, initially under a six‐month probationary employment.
He was regularized on May 1, 2000 with a monthly salary of P7,000.00, a P1,500.00 transportation allowance, and commission based on sales.
On March 18, 2002, petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against the company and its top management, including President Ramonita Y. Sy and Vice-President Milagros U. Garcia.

A strained relationship developed between petitioner and former Vice-President Garcia, who was rehired by the company in late 2001, due to certain incidents involving longtime clients.
On February 19, 2002, after a weekly sales meeting, petitioner was informed by Sales Supervisor Richard Agcaoili about an impending transfer to the marketing department—a move he hesitated to accept, stating he would “think it over.”
That same day, petitioner was summoned to a closed-door meeting with respondents Sy and Garcia, during which:

Sy verbally terminated his services on the ground of “insubordination.”
Petitioner was ordered to immediately turn over company samples and files.
When petitioner requested his termination paper, Sy remarked that if that was what he wanted, she would issue it, adding a threatening comment, “pag-isipan mo ang gagawin mo dahil kilala mo naman kami we are powerful.”

On February 22, 2002, following the instruction to surrender company property, petitioner turned over samples, accounts, and receivables to his supervisor, Agcaoili, and thereafter did not report for work.
On March 6, 2002, an employee of Centro Ceramica Corporation delivered a memorandum to petitioner’s apartment alleging his failure to meet the sales quota, which petitioner did not receive properly as it was not on official stationery.
On March 13, 2002, another memorandum was sent charging him with absence without leave and requiring a written explanation—a memo that came after petitioner had already ceased reporting for work.

Petitioner contended that his termination was illegal, alleging that the dismissal was effected without due process and for insufficient cause.
Through his counsel, petitioner rebutted the company’s rationale by asserting that:

The verbal dismissal by Sy was the actual basis of termination.
The memos issued later were attempts by respondents to cover up the procedural lapses in effectuating the termination.
He demanded reinstatement with back wages, unpaid commission, tax refund, and other benefits.

Respondents contended that petitioner’s poor sales performance was the basis for his termination and that:

Management had advised him on the possibility of transfer due to performance issues, as communicated on February 18, 2002.
Upon learning of his impending transfer, petitioner expressed his intention to resign by indicating he would quit the company.

Sales Supervisor Richard Agcaoili, who testified that petitioner was merely informed of the department transfer and voluntarily turned over his documents.
Co-employee Rommel Azarraga, who stated that his warning about “mainit ka kay Mrs. Garcia” was intended to caution petitioner rather than indicate any malice.
Warehouse helper Arnulfo Merecido, whose recollection involved an unrelated altercation with petitioner in June 2000.

The Labor Arbiter ruled on April 8, 2003, dismissing petitioner’s complaint on the basis that petitioner had “voluntarily resigned” by failing to report for work after surrendering his documents.
The NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter’s decision, finding that petitioner was illegally dismissed due to the questionable and irregular circumstances surrounding his termination.
The Court of Appeals (CA) subsequently reversed the NLRC ruling, holding that petitioner’s actions—especially his voluntary turnover of company property—indicated an “informal severance” rather than an illegal dismissal.

The core of the dispute centered on whether petitioner’s actions (turning over documents and not reporting for work) constituted a voluntary resignation or were evidence of an oral, summary dismissal executed by the company president.
Petitioner argued that his request for a termination paper and the threatening remark made by Sy pointed to an illegal dismissal executed without due process.
Respondents maintained that the memos issued post-termination were consistent with an investigation into the alleged poor performance and absence without leave, thereby supporting their claim of a voluntary resignation.

Whether the petitioner was illegally dismissed by the respondents or voluntarily severed his employment by abandoning his job.
Whether the act of turning over company documents and the issuance of subsequent memos conclusively indicate a voluntary resignation.
Whether the evidence presented, including conflicting testimonies and memos, satisfies the due process requirements in the termination of employment.