G.R. No. 250205 - Vergara vs. ANZ Global Services and Operations Manila, Inc.

On November 30, 2010, respondent ANZ Global Services and Operations Manila, Inc. hired petitioner John Roger NiAo S. Vergara as a Risk Manager.
On August 5, 2016, petitioner submitted his resignation letter to his Line Manager, Kristine Gorospe, indicating that his last day of work would be September 6, 2016.
The resignation occurred amid an upcoming restructuring program in the company, wherein displaced workers were to receive a lump sum severance payment; petitioner’s position was among those affected.

On August 15, 2016, petitioner became aware of the restructuring program.
On September 1, 2016, petitioner inquired about the status of the Resignation Acceptance Form (RAF) and discovered that it had not been signed by his Line Manager.
On September 5, 2016, petitioner emailed Roscoe Pineda, Head of Risk Services, formally withdrawing his resignation.
Pineda replied on the same day informing petitioner that his resignation would take effect on September 6, 2016, but advised him to consult the Human Resources (HR) department regarding the possibility of retracting his resignation.
On September 6, 2016, Nicola Hutton, Head of HR, sent an email clarifying that petitioner’s resignation had already been accepted and that his employment had ceased effective that day.
Petitioner subsequently filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and monetary recovery, arguing that his timely withdrawal should have preserved his employment, including his entitlement to separation pay under the restructuring program.

The Labor Arbiter (LA) issued a decision on February 15, 2017, dismissing petitioner’s complaint for lack of merit, although awarding him proportionate 13th month pay for 2016.

The LA ruled that petitioner voluntarily resigned and that his resignation had been effectively accepted by the triggering of the Employee Leaving Advice (ELA) by Gorospe.
The procedural practice noted by the LA included bypassing the Resignation Acceptance Form (RAF) in favor of the ELA.

Both parties appealed the LA decision to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).

On April 27, 2017, the NLRC modified the LA decision by holding that petitioner’s resignation was ineffectual due to lack of formal acceptance.
The NLRC ruled that petitioner had validly retracted his resignation on September 5, 2016, and consequently ordered respondent to pay both separation pay (one month for each year of service) and the proportionate 13th month pay.
A subsequent Motion for Reconsideration by respondent was denied by the NLRC on June 23, 2017.

Respondent filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA), challenging the NLRC decision.
On January 17, 2019, the CA reversed the NLRC’s ruling by reinstating the LA decision.

The CA found that petitioner’s resignation had been accepted, based on the affidavits of HR staff and the electronic records evidencing the triggering of the ELA.

Petitioner moved for reconsideration before the CA, which was subsequently denied on October 24, 2019.
Petitioner then filed the present Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, contesting the CA’s determination on the acceptance of his resignation.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding that there was a timely and effective acceptance of petitioner’s resignation prior to its retraction.

The central question revolves around the effectiveness of the resignation when no formal acceptance (via the Resignation Acceptance Form or any valid equivalent) was executed.
Whether the triggering of the Employee Leaving Advice (ELA) by the Line Manager constitutes a legally sufficient acceptance of resignation.
The admissibility and sufficiency of evidence, including emails and affidavits submitted by respondent, in establishing that petitioner’s resignation was indeed accepted.