Title
Villaruel vs. Yeo Han Guan
Case
G.R. No. 169191
Decision Date
Jun 1, 2011
A long-term employee, ill and denied lighter work, sought separation pay from 1963. Court ruled resignation, not termination, but granted P50,000 as equitable relief for 35 years of service.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 169191)

Background of the Case

The case began when Romeo Villaruel filed a complaint for separation pay against Yuhans Enterprises, owned by Yeo Han Guan. Villaruel asserted that he had been employed by the company since June 1963, with the company undergoing several name changes over the years. He claimed that he was sick in October 1998 and was subsequently not allowed to return to work. Following his refusal of an offered separation pay of PHP 15,000, which did not adequately cover his tenure, he sought full separation pay and additional service incentive leave.

Proceedings in Labor Arbiter and Subsequent Appeals

The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Villaruel, awarding him separation pay based on Article 284 of the Labor Code, recognizing his long service with Yuhans Enterprises. The NLRC affirmed this decision upon appeal. However, Yeo Han Guan submitted a certiorari petition to the Court of Appeals, leading to a modification wherein the award of separation pay was deleted, yet the service incentive leave pay remained intact.

Legal Issues Presented in the Petition

Upon challenging the Court of Appeals decision, Villaruel assigned several errors, asserting that the court overlooked evidence of his termination and misapplied the burden of proof regarding entitlement to separation pay. He argued that the Court of Appeals's finding that he voluntarily severed his employment relationship with the respondent was erroneous.

Entitlement to Separation Pay

The Supreme Court reiterated that under Article 284 of the Labor Code, only an employer may terminate an employee due to disease. The issue remained whether Villaruel had been dismissed or if he resigned. Examination of the pleadings revealed that Villaruel consistently indicated no intention to return to work, effectively equating to resignation. His claim for separation pay, therefore, did not align with the stipulations of the Labor Code, which only entitles departing employees to such compensation if dismissed.

Employer's Obligation and Employee’s Resignation

The nature of resignation was highlighted, noting that an employee’s act of severing their employment ties voluntarily negates the basis for claiming separation pay unless otherwise stipulated in contractual terms or company policy. Given the lack of any incriminating record against Villaruel throughout his tenure, it was determined that he was not terminated for any misconduct, but rather he chose not to return due to

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.